Nevada gamblers are on the verge of using their wagering accounts when they pay for casino meals, retail purchases, and other expenses as an alternative cash or debit card and credit cards.
The Nevada Gaming Commission will decide in December whether to expand the use of wagering accounts, which today can only be used for gambling. The Nevada Gaming Control Board has recommended the change in the state regulation that’s being pushed by cashless gaming companies.
Regulators have been approached by the industry to consider expanded use of wagering accounts beyond gaming activities, as long as it’s within a casino-resort. The Board isn’t interested in the use of wagering accounts off the casino property, including out of state.
“We’re moving the ball forward to where the future of gaming and cashless wagering systems should be,” Board Chair Kirk Hendrick said during its monthly meeting Wednesday. “Of course, we have concerns about money laundering and other issues that we need to be cautious about. As presented, I feel comfortable that, if the Commission approves this, we’re allowing people to do what they’re already doing. A lot less people carry cash these days, but we don’t want to make mistakes. The world is going cashless and Nevada gaming regulators shouldn’t be standing in the way of that.”
Board member Brittnie Watkins supports the expanded use of wagering accounts for non-gaming uses in the casino. She said companies have technology in the pipeline to enable it.
Board member George Assad favors changes in regulations that help the industry thrive. His only concern is that it “doesn’t run afoul” of banking and anti-money-laundering regulations.
“What if someone at Wynn Macau wants to wire to $100,000 to Wynn Las Vegas? Would that trigger any violations of (the anti-money-laundering Banking Secrecy Act),” Assad inquired. “We need to look at it and see if we’re compliant with federal law. The Wynn just paid a $130 million fine (for unlicensed money-transfer businesses around the world funneling funds to gamblers in Las Vegas).”
Hendrick and Board staff said that wouldn’t be an issue in this case.
There were technical questions to settle at the hearing. Sightline Payments’ legal counsel Scott Scherer, an attorney at Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, said some systems already allow customers to move funds from a wagering account in Nevada to other jurisdictions and worries the regulation as written would impede that.
“If somebody comes to Las Vegas from Massachusetts, opens a wagering account at Wynn, goes back to Massachusetts, and uses that money, they should be able to get access to that at the Encore Boston Harbor,” Scherer said. “This would clarify that the ‘occurring in Nevada’ language wouldn’t prohibit the movement of funds, as long as they’re complying with federal and state laws.”
Jennifer Carleton, chief legal officer for Sightline, said limiting it to Nevada would put operators that have casinos in other states at a disadvantage. “There might be some unintended limitations or consequences for Nevada licensees that are similarly situated.”
Scherer said one of the concerns is not to create a disincentive for tourists who come to Nevada and deposit money into a wagering account because it’s too inconvenient to move it back out of the account.
“We have no intention of creating ambiguity or unintended consequences,” Hendrick said. “It would be a real shame if we went through this whole process and caused people not to use it.”
Jim Barbee, chief of the technology division for the Gaming Control Board, said the technology used to fund and withdraw from wagering accounts isn’t restricted geographically, so patrons can they fund it in Massachusetts, then make a withdrawal in that state from a Nevada wagering account.
“I don’t believe what we’re talking about right now would inhibit that patron from the use of those funds in any way,” Barbee said. “What the impact may be is the convenience for the patron to make use of those funds for wagering in Massachusetts. We have approved technology that if you have a wagering account in Nevada and Massachusetts controlled by the same operator, there’s a vehicle to move the funds from the Nevada account.”
The language in the proposal stating “occurring in Nevada” relates to using the Nevada wagering account for activity within the state, Barbee said. There are restrictions, however, on what can be done.
Barbee used the example that a patron wouldn’t be able to use the Nevada wagering account for a ski trip in Colorado, but he understands that the industry wants to ultimately broaden what the funds can be used for in the future.
Carleton cited Barbee’s Colorado hypothetical as an example of the ultimate intent of the industry. From a technology and regulatory perspective, there’s no difference between spending that money in the casino where it was won and spending it in another state.
“We appreciate that, for today, allowing these things only in Nevada is hopefully a first step to ultimately allowing it regardless of physical location.”
Hendrick said the Board understands that this isn’t where the industry is going to be in several years or several months given how fast technology is moving. They aren’t ready to move that quickly at this time.
“I don’t want patrons in Nevada (to fail to understand) why they can’t use their wagering account in a restaurant or gift shop in the same property. We’re trying to move this ball a bit down the field. We not all the way across the goal line, but we want to continue these conversations with Sightline and others.”
Scherer agreed with Hendrick that further action needs to be taken on this regulation in the future, but “this is a step forward.”
The proposed change would apply only to non-restricted licenses, i.e., casinos. Restricted establishments can’t have wagering accounts.
