Breaking news

Cyprus’ Casino Cash Controversy: Money Laundering Concerns And Political Divisions

by News Editor

April 3, 2025

At least 16 cases of suspicious gambling activity at Cypriot casinos have been flagged for police investigation between 2023 and 2024, raising concerns over money laundering risks. The revelations surfaced during a heated parliamentary debate on whether to exempt casinos from the country’s €10,000 cash transaction cap.

According to a confidential memo from the Unit for Combating Money Laundering (MOKAS), the country’s financial crime watchdog, the casino operator Integrated Casino Resorts Cyprus Ltd reported 182 suspicious transactions totaling nearly €480,000 over the two years. The breakdown shows €260,171 flagged in 2023 and €219,896 in 2024.

Follow THE FUTURE on LinkedIn, Facebook, Instagram, X and Telegram

Of the 16 cases handed over to police—eight each year—only one has led to enforcement action, though authorities have not confirmed whether charges were filed. Two cases remain under criminal investigation, while three have been linked to existing probes. The remaining 10 cases were connected to other crimes, including illegal immigration.

Global Players Under Scrutiny

MOKAS also detailed the nationalities of gamblers flagged in suspicious cash transactions. In 2023, individuals from Cyprus, Israel, Greece, Syria, Vietnam, China, Georgia, Poland, Korea, and the UK were involved in 34 cash-related reports. By 2024, 10 similar cases featured players from Cyprus, Greece, Israel, Jordan, Syria, Vietnam, Lebanon, and Turkey.

Recent figures presented to the House Institutions Committee revealed that Israeli players gambled €92 million in cash at Cypriot casinos in 2024 alone, while Cypriot players wagered €77 million in cash during the same period, according to reports from local media outlet Politis.

Regulatory Loopholes and Cross-Border Gambling

Legislators are also concerned about a loophole allowing players from Israel, Lebanon, and other Middle Eastern countries to enter Cyprus, gamble in casinos in the occupied north, and declare their winnings at the Republic of Cyprus customs without thorough oversight. A previous parliamentary discussion on March 5 highlighted this gap, adding fuel to the debate over tightening regulations.

Casino Exemption Sparks Political Divide

The debate over casino cash transactions is intensifying as MPs prepare to vote on a proposal to lift the €10,000 cash limit for casinos. The bill, introduced by MPs Nicolas Papadopoulos (DIKO), Marinos Mousiouttas (DIPA), Efthymios Diplaros (DISY), and Andreas Themistocleous, has sparked a sharp divide in parliament.

Supporters, including DISY MPs Demetris Demetriou and Nicos Georgiou, as well as DIKO’s Zacharias Koulias, argue that an exemption is necessary for the gaming industry’s competitiveness. However, opponents—including AKEL MPs Irene Charalambidou and Andreas Pasioutides, along with independent MP Alexandra Attalides—warn that lifting the cap would open the floodgates to money laundering.

Regulators and Critics Sound the Alarm

Attalides has been among the most vocal critics, warning that the proposal would undermine Cyprus’ efforts to shed its reputation as a hub for financial crime. “Cyprus has long been seen as a laundromat for international criminals,” she said in a parliamentary press conference. “This exemption disregards warnings from regulatory bodies and invites more scrutiny from international financial watchdogs.”

She pointed out that the Tax Commissioner, the Central Bank, the Cyprus Bar Association, MOKAS, and the Securities and Exchange Commission all oppose lifting the cash cap.

Attalides also raised concerns about Israeli gamblers circumventing their home country’s 35% casino winnings tax by using Cyprus’ gaming sector. “Supervisory authorities are telling us that we are facilitating tax evasion by foreign nationals,” she noted.

Next Steps: High-Stakes Vote Ahead

The bill is set for a parliamentary vote on March 27. With strong opposition from regulators and certain MPs, the outcome remains uncertain. If passed, critics warn that Cyprus risks international backlash, while proponents argue it could boost the gaming sector. One thing is clear: the debate over casino cash transactions is far from over.

The Future Forbes Realty Global Properties

Copyright Law Struggles To Keep Up With AI Training

by News Editor

August 24, 2026

Courts Are Still Applying Old Copyright Rules To AI

AI companies train models on enormous amounts of published material, including books, articles and academic research. Whether using that content without authors’ permission violates copyright law remains unresolved.

Much of the debate centres on fair use, which allows copyrighted material to be used without permission in certain circumstances. Courts consider factors such as the purpose of the use, how much material was involved and its impact on the original market.

Follow THE FUTURE on LinkedIn, Facebook, Instagram, X and Telegram

Anthropic Case Sets An Important Precedent

A major case involving Anthropic and a group of authors provided one of the clearest rulings so far. Judge William Alsup found that using copyrighted books to train AI models was lawful, comparing the process to people reading and studying literature before creating something new.

Anthropic was nevertheless ordered to pay $1.5 billion in a settlement. The penalty concerned books the company had obtained from illegal online libraries rather than the AI training itself.

For AI companies, that distinction could prove significant because it separates studying copyrighted material from directly copying it.

Competition Could Be The Key Issue

A case involving Thomson Reuters and Ross Intelligence offers a different perspective. A court ruled that Ross could not claim fair use after using Reuters’ copyrighted material to develop a competing AI-powered legal research platform.

The decision suggests courts may be less willing to consider AI training fair use when copyrighted content is used to build a product that directly competes with the original.

For authors, an unresolved question is whether AI-generated content should be considered competition for the works used to train these models.

The Law Has Yet To Catch Up

US copyright law predates generative AI by decades, leaving courts to apply old principles to new technology. Questions also remain over copyright protection for AI-generated works. In Thaler v. Perlmutter, a court ruled that material created entirely by AI cannot receive copyright protection.

Major AI companies remain involved in copyright litigation, and different courts could reach different conclusions. For now, there is no universal rule: the legality of AI training will depend on the circumstances of each case and how courts ultimately interpret copyright and fair use.