Exactly. Scam websites can be casinos or shops or anything.
Ok, you understand that this is a completely different set of businesses compared to established casino business, right?
Talking about scam website to infer things about the “real” counterparts doesn’t make much sense. Yes, there is scam-everything. Doesn’t mean “shops are scam”, because there are shops which scam people. So when I talk about online casinos, I refer to the legitimate businesses that are gambling businesses, not scam organizations that happen to use gambling as their cover.
In any case, licenses are a very effective way to protect yourself from scammers.
Casinos, on and offline, are excellent ways to launder. The amount of regulations trying to mitigate this risk proves my point.
As all systems that allow to move money, they are excellent vectors, but doesn’t mean they are excellent ways to launder money. Regulations prevent money laundering (or strongly mitigating), which makes them less and less viable for laundering. I specifically talk about online casinos, since cash is not an option.
Not for casinos. Gambling addiction is a casino’s main business. Why are there no windows in Vegas?
Online and physical casinos are different and they comply with different regulations. In online casinos for example it might be mandatory to limit session duration, show popups every X minutes to inform about losses and duration of the session etc., depending on licenses. These are just responsible gaming measures enforced by licenses (in this case the Maltese, which is a very common one), which do not apply to physical casinos.
Yes. Online you can scam many more people with fake roulette tables.
So, this is the crux of the problem: your definition of scamming seems to be variable. There are only two options:
The casino game works according to specifics
The casino game is rigged, meaning it provides better odds to the host compared to its specifics
Both of them provide revenue for the host, with the second being marginally higher (you can’t have 80% margin, people won’t play). The second though has the problem that it won’t pass certification, so the only way to serve it is on unlicensed sites. Being unlicensed makes it impossible to access whole markets. So, why companies should go for the second and not the first, when even the first is providing money and a bigger pool of players?
To support your claim, maybe you can list a bunch of articles about casinos getting caught with rigged games that were licensed? I did a quick search and nothing popped up immediately (although they might exist, and it’s a good thing they got caught, which shows controls work).
Betfair, betfred, bet356, Ladbrokes etc.
As a user? Because that doesn’t tell much. Anyway, bet365 has a casino, do you trust it?