Payment service providers will need to be approved as vendors before they can services licensees. Under the General Codes they should be appropriately regulated. Crypto payment solutions are deemed higher risk, so there will need to be appropriate controls in place, however they are allowable where a range of the most popular cryptocurrencies, including Bitcoin, Ethereum, ERC-20 based stable coins and a range of other ERC-20 tokens are accepted. New Crypto regulation are imminent and likely to be published by the end of 2024 Money Laundering Requirements There are Money Laundering Regulations and Codes of Practice governing this area which can be found on the TGC website https://thetgc.ca/regulatory-documents/ In terms of customer due diligence: Initial due diligence consisting of: Player identification and verification will need to start at account opening and be completed on the earlier of: consolidated wagers reaching €2,000; before 1st withdrawal or 30 days of 1st deposit PEPs and sanctions screening on account opening & completed before wagering if possible Adverse media check on account opening & completed within 30 days of first deposit and before any withdrawal Enhanced due diligence is required for higher risk situations, mandatory for PEPs, and will be required more in-depth ID verification, source of funds / wealth. MLRO and senior management approval will be required in some situations (such as PEPs) In general AML/ CFT requirements are in line with whitelisted, robust jurisdictions albeit a more risk-based approach rather than a prescriptive approach has been taken. B2B licensees will also be subject to certain AML requirements in accordance with the type(s) of licensed B2B activity. Compliance will largely be monitored by reporting requirements, where any suspicious activity must be notified to TGC and DLAG.
Tobique First Nation · Question 06 of 11
Payments and banking: Can we move player money?
Not assessed · Not recorded · Expert approved · 1 post-review update · Not reviewed · In expert review scope · Back to full Tobique First Nation report →
Key section parameters
| Jurisdiction | Tobique First Nation (CA-TFN) |
|---|---|
| Regulator | Recorded in register |
| Favourability | Not assessed |
| Confidence | Not recorded |
| Review status | Expert approved · 1 post-review update · Not reviewed · In expert review scope |
| Last collected | 18 Oct 2026 |
Summary answer
Payment service providers will need to be approved as vendors before they can services licensees. Under the General Codes they should be appropriately regulated. Crypto payment solutions are deemed higher risk, so there will need to be appropriate controls in place, however they are allowable where …
Cryptocurrency is reported as an accepted funding method for Tobique-licensed operators, a low-confidence finding, and whether the dedicated crypto-specific regulations once described as forthcoming have since been published is a question we have put to counsel. Crypto funding is therefore governed, so far as we have been able to establish, by the Commission's general Money Laundering Regulations and Codes of Practice rather than by a crypto-specific instrument, elevating accessory-liability exposure for payment-service providers, e-money institutions, and crypto on-ramp counterparties considering relationships with Tobique-licensed operators. No permitted fiat payment method, withdrawal-obligation standard, or capital-control provision specific to Tobique licensees has been documented in this pass. The lack of an identified crypto-specific AML instrument alongside an active crypto-funding permission is, of the documentation gaps identified for CA-TFN, among the most commercially consequential for payments-chain counterparties specifically, since it bears directly on their own AML exposure rather than only on the licensee's.