BURST
A casino patron who says he was dealt a bad hand when the B.C. Lottery Corp. placed him on a list of suspected money launderers took a gamble the courts would reverse the decision — but a judge has said no dice.
Ali Ghotaymi asked the B.C. Supreme Court to overturn the BCLC’s decision to require him to provide proof of where he got the large amounts of cash he was gambling with at the River Rock Casino.
He objected to the lottery corporation placing “sourced cash conditions” on his cash buy-ins at the province’s casinos because it unfairly and wrongly stigmatized him as a money launderer. He also says it was unreasonable because it happened without any notice to him, according to a decision by Justice Matthew Kirchner.
The conditions required Ghotaymi to show through withdrawal receipts and other proof that he withdrew the money from a bank, a measure the lottery corporation implemented after a public inquiry documented that large amounts of cash were being washed through B.C. casinos.
The 2022 report of B.C.’s inquiry into money laundering said casinos were a major source of laundered money , particularly before 2015, and that in 2014 alone B.C. casinos accepted nearly $1.2 billion in cash transactions of $10,000 or more, including upwards of five transactions a day exceeding $100,000, according to the judgment.
To combat that, the lottery corporation requires patrons with cash buy-ins of more than $10,000 to show the money came from an accredited bank. That shows BCLC that it had been subjected to banks’ rigorous anti-money-laundering procedures and the information is likely not fraudulent.
The approach is also justified by the need to comply with the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act and could assist police investigating any possible proceeds of crime, according to the judgment.
Ghotaymi’s buy-ins were flagged for conditions in July 2021 even though his buy-ins never exceeded $10,000. He had made 29 “large cash” transactions in the 2½ years prior, and 11 of those were for $9,000.
Two of the $9,000 buy-ins were at different casinos within less than two hours, the judgment said.
Kirchner’s judgment said BCLC placed conditions on those buying in with less than $10,000 known as threshold avoidance or structuring without requiring any suspicion or proof of money laundering. Casinos consider a gambler’s employment and noted that as a Canada Post employee, Ghotaymi wouldn’t be dealing with large amounts of cash.
Ghotaymi said there was an innocent explanation, that his buy-ins came from his casino cash winnings and he used $9,000 because nine was his lucky number, according to the judgment.
BCLC records showed he won substantial amounts of money during the times of his large buy-ins, the corporation said.
Ghotaymi said placing him on conditions blacklists him and “stigmatizes him as a suspected money launderer,” which could affect his ability to get a job or security clearance, it said.
Kirchner said that considering Ghotaymi is a “law-abiding person who has had success in BCLC-sanctioned casinos using the very cash that he won in those same casinos, it is not surprising that he would take offence to being placed in the company of suspected money launderers.”
But he also noted the conditions don’t prohibit him from gambling because he can buy in with other methods , such as a bank card, and with the history of money laundering at B.C. casinos and strong public interest in reducing it, asking gamblers to show where large sums come from “does not strike me as objectively onerous,” he wrote.
He also didn’t consider it stigmatizing because the money launderers list isn’t made public and wouldn’t be made available to prospective employers.
It’s not surprising those who gamble with large sums of cash might be asked to verify its source, especially amounts just short of the trigger threshold, Kirchner wrote.
He found it was reasonable for BCLC to avoid risk when it comes to possible money laundering.
“Mr. Ghotaymi’s preferred practice of using cash winnings from one day as a buy-in at the casino on another day unfortunately overlaps with practices that others may use for money laundering,” he said.
He dismissed the application for a judicial review because an “overinclusive approach that captures some innocent activities in the sourced-cash-conditions net is preferable to one that might allow money laundering to slip through the cracks.”