Canada’s financial intelligence unit has imposed a $1,175,000 administrative monetary penalty on the Saskatchewan Indian Gaming Authority after a compliance examination found three breaches of the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act.
The penalty was assessed on August 28 and disclosed publicly on September 12.
FINTRAC said SIGA, which operates seven casinos in the province, failed to submit suspicious transaction reports when there were reasonable grounds to suspect criminal activity, filed other suspicious transaction reports without required details, and lacked up-to-date written policies and procedures approved by a senior officer.
Regulators said four suspicious transaction reports were never filed despite multiple indicators that should have triggered reporting, and three filed reports omitted the necessary description of the suspicion.
Investigators also cited weaknesses in risk assessment and ongoing monitoring, noting that in a sample of 100 patrons the organization recorded the risk level as “none” in 41 cases, which undermined required monitoring of higher risk customers.
Sarah Paquet, FINTRAC’s director and chief executive, said in a statement that the reporting regime protects Canadians and the economy, and that the agency will take appropriate action when businesses fall short.
FINTRAC added that suspicious transaction reporting is central to generating financial intelligence for law enforcement and national security agencies.
The watchdog issued a record 23 Notices of Violation in fiscal 2024–25, totaling more than $25 million.
SIGA said it will challenge the decision in Federal Court, the organization emphasized that the case concerns administrative reporting requirements rather than criminal wrongdoing.
“There is no money laundering, terrorist financing, or other financial crimes at SIGA’s properties,” the group said, adding that it disagrees with both the violations and the penalty.
For casino operators and their service providers, the case underscores the rigor regulators expect in documenting suspicion and formalizing risk assessments.
Even when a report is filed, FINTRAC requires that specific indicators and the basis for suspicion be set out in enough detail to allow analysis.
Failure to do so can carry penalties for serious and very serious violations, and poor risk classification can cascade into broader failures in ongoing monitoring and enhanced due diligence.
Appeal and what it means for compliance budgets
The penalty will not be final until appeal avenues are exhausted, but the action adds to a wave of enforcement that has swept across sectors subject to the federal anti–money laundering law, including casinos, money services businesses, and real estate brokers.
Ottawa has also moved to raise the ceiling on administrative monetary penalties, proposing caps of up to 3 percent of global revenue for multiple violations at the largest entities.
That prospective framework, if fully implemented, would materially increase the cost of noncompliance for major operators.
For investors, lenders, and vendors tied to the Canadian gaming sector, including record events like the second-biggest Powerball jackpot, the message is straightforward.
Compliance programs must be resourced to ensure that front-line staff can recognize and escalate red flags, that reports include substantive detail, and that risk ratings are documented and kept current.
The absence of allegations of criminal conduct in this case does not insulate firms from sizable administrative penalties, reputational damage, or remediation costs.
As FINTRAC’s enforcement cadence rises, boards and audit committees will want tighter oversight of suspicious transaction reporting quality, periodic effectiveness testing, and executive signoff on program updates.
