“Brazilian regulations were clear and objective in establishing that operators are directly responsible for preventing money laundering within their platforms,” points out João Fraga, CEO of Paag, a techfin that offers advanced resources aimed at the specific needs of betting operators.
“With the entry into force of Ordinance No. 561 and the recent warning from the Ministry of Finance, there is no longer any room for omission: it is mandatory to have a structured AML policy, with internal rules, user identification, continuous monitoring and immediate reporting of suspicious transactions,” he assesses.
“The betting sector needs to adapt quickly to this new scenario, leaving behind any trace of informality. Combating money laundering is not just a legal requirement — it is an essential condition for the legitimacy and sustainability of the market in Brazil,” adds the executive.
As mentioned by the executive, a series of mandatory technologies and protocols were imposed. The first of these is user registration, with facial registration and official documents, to prevent the creation of multiple profiles, and permission for only one bank account, through which the bettor must make and receive all transactions, avoiding misappropriation.
The implementation and ongoing monitoring of these protocols are the sole responsibility of betting platforms, and as such, they are also responsible for reporting any suspicious transactions or profiles to the Financial Activities Control Council (Coaf).
Another fundamental measure for the financial security of the user and the platform is the qualification of the bettor. Bet is responsible for assessing the economic and financial capacity of its registered users and their propensity for political exposure.
According to the legislation, ‘Bets’ without economic or legal basis, incompatible with market practices, and containing signs of money laundering or association with criminal groups must be monitored and investigated.
Therefore, it is up to the betting platform to flag atypical movements. These include incompatibility between transactions and the player's socioeconomic situation and bets made in a way that suggests the use of automated tools.
Other cases that should be monitored more closely are those involving sports betting on the betting exchange, in which the ‘odds’ are defined by the user, as there are signs of ‘agreements’ between those involved.
In order to facilitate continuous monitoring of data by Coaf, companies must also store all information on their customers, employees and suppliers for at least five years.
Source: GMB
