Australia's three largest casino operators under money laundering probe

Australia’s anti-money-laundering agency on Monday widened an investigation into casinos to include the three biggest operators over a potential breach of money laundering laws.

Owners of the main casinos in Australia's five biggest cities are now under formal investigation. Months into an investigation of Crown Resorts, the Australian Transaction Reports and Analysis Centre (Austrac) said it was formally looking into possible breaches of background check rules at rival Star Entertainment Group and New Zealand’s SkyCity Entertainment Group.

Crown has already been investigated for potential breaches at its Melbourne casino, but Austrac on Monday expanded the probe to its Perth casino, BBC reports. The company has been unable to open a newly built Sydney casino costing A$2.2bn ($1.7bn) after a landmark inquiry earlier this year said the company was unfit to hold a gaming licence in New South Wales.

The inquiry found that Crown had been "facilitating money laundering, exposing staff to the risk of detention in a foreign jurisdiction and pursuing commercial relationships with individuals" connected to criminal groups at casinos in other Australian cities. The commissioner of the inquiry recommended an overhaul of the company's governance, beginning with the sacking of most of the board.

Star Entertainment Group, which runs Sydney's only casino, is also now being investigated over suspected breaches of customer due diligence laws. That could jeopardise a $7bn proposal to buy rival Crown Resorts, which has been fielding takeover approaches in the face of the money laundering allegations.

New Zealand-based SkyCity, which runs one casino in Australia, said the regulator is investigating its Adelaide operation over potential shortfalls in management of customers identified as "high risk and politically exposed".

All three casino companies said Austrac was concerned with their management of “customers identified as high risk and politically exposed persons”, that the agency had not decided whether to take enforcement action, and that they would cooperate fully.