Mike Dreitzer
Chairman, Nevada Gaming Control Board
Fresh off a two-front battle this summer, Nevada Gaming Control Board Chairman Mike Dreitzer is ready to complete the final quarter of a highly productive year. Dreitzer, who was appointed in June 2025, appears to be handling the jam-packed slate with aplomb. Beyond prediction markets, where the state notched a key win in the Ninth Circuit, he’s been tasked with leading the broadest set of anti-money laundering reforms for the Las Vegas Strip in decades.
In light of a wave of settlements that resulted in approximately $34 million in combined fines against four operators, GGB’s Matt Rybaltowski sat down with Dreitzer to discuss the GCB’s blueprint to bolster AML compliance across the Las Vegas Strip.
GGB: Two prominent firms, Grant Thornton and Ballard Spahr, were very laudatory of the state for its approach to the reforms. In totality, they noted that regulators now expect stronger controls, stronger accountability and stronger oversight. How reassuring is it that these firms concluded that the new framework may provide the enhanced oversight that is needed from a risk-mitigation standpoint?
Dreitzer: It’s always nice to get feedback and input from industry observers and participants pertaining to our regulations, issues and policies. This was the first set of AML regulatory changes in 20 years, so we worked together with many experts and received input from the industry. It was a real collaborative effort to make sure we got the right result. We believe these regulations will make a strong difference in the industry’s efforts to fight money laundering.
As part of the U.S. Department of the Treasury’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network Section 314(b) Information-Sharing Program, eligible casinos are legally recognized as “financial institutions” under the Bank Secrecy Act. How optimistic are you that the GCB’s innovative pilot program will result in meaningful change in terms of cooperation between casino licensees for identifying bad actors who are targeting multiple casinos?
My goal is to make sure that information is more accessible, current and relevant. In doing so, licensees can make better decisions about prospective players.
What type of reticence is there among licensees in participating in such a program, since there may be proprietary information that is disseminated by certain casinos that could be used by their competitors for commercial benefit?
We’re creating a standard so the questions asked are the same across the board, making it a fair playing field. 314(b) was a logical mechanism because it provides a safe harbor method to share player information between licensees.
We’ve seen a significant increase in participation in this program, showing a high level of commitment by our licensees. Additionally, we get regular feedback from licensees about how it’s improving their overall ability to understand the source of funds for prospective players, which was the goal. Previously if someone was banned, they would just go to the next place. This program has greatly increased the communication and awareness between the licensees.
As it relates to accountability for secondary agents, have you sent the message that ignorance of the Bank Secrecy Act or ignorance of Nevada state regulations cannot be used as a viable excuse for not complying with their casino’s internal controls regarding AML matters?
Yes, without question. Previously secondary agents have existed completely outside of regulatory reach. We’re identifying secondary agents and vetting them in ways that have never been done before. NGC Regulation 25.040, “Required Reports and Recordkeeping,” includes provisions such as a licensee shall provide an annual list containing the identity of all secondary representatives used by a registered independent agent, and the independent agent shall not use any secondary representative unless the licensee is notified by the independent agent of the identity of such secondary representative and the licensee provides the independent agent written approval of the use of such secondary representative.
Additionally, the secondary agent and the independent agent are required to complete the licensee’s annual AML training. This is a big step forward.
One other related provision is that a licensee can withhold an independent agent’s payment until the source of funds is verified for a player. That’s a major economic incentive for all independent agents in the ecosystem to make sure only appropriate players are brought into licensed gaming establishments.
It’s also noteworthy that NGC Regulation 5.030 states, “It is the responsibility of the registrant, licensee, or person found suitable by the Commission to keep informed of the content of all such regulations, and ignorance thereof will not excuse violations.”
To summarize, how pleased have you been with the modifications put into place? And how confident are you that widespread reforms will lead to substantial progress in a material fashion for numerous years to come?
We feel very good about the efficacy of these changes, the first ones of their kind for the last two decades. They’re already yielding some significantly positive results, even in the short period since their adoption.
That said, this is a never-ending improvement project. We’ll continue to look for ways to improve the effectiveness of our AML enforcement procedures in the state of Nevada.
