Were You Invited to a “Las Vegas” Casino to Play Without Your Own Money?

Tuesday, February 17, 2026 – The Felman case and the system that can turn a VIP experience into an international criminal case

Casino credit, criminal jurisdiction and integrity: the Felman case as an X-ray of the new global gaming risk.

“The distance between a VIP experience and a criminal case can be measured in a single signature.”

The arrest of Argentine sports journalist Eduardo “Quique” Felman in the United States exposed the operation of a system in which hospitality, credit, criminal law and compliance operate at the same time. Why in Nevada a gaming debt can be a crime and what changed in the VIP model after the collapse of junkets and the advance of FinCEN.

The detention in the United States of the sports journalist was not the result of an investigation into illegal gambling nor of being charged with being part of a criminal organisation. It was the direct consequence of a debt generated through a line of credit granted by a Las Vegas casino and documented with a financial instrument signed in his name.

That seemingly simple fact exposes one of the most sophisticated and least understood mechanisms in international gaming: casino credit as a financial product enforceable through criminal law in the jurisdiction of Nevada.

Felman was arrested upon entering US territory at Miami airport, remained under federal custody for thirteen days and regained his freedom after an agreement with the prosecution that reduced the original debt — close to USD 300,000 — to an amount of approximately USD 120,000, which was paid.

With the payment, the criminal action was extinguished.
The case ended there legally.
But from a structural point of view, it had just begun.

Because what was exposed was not an individual conflict but the functioning of a global system where hospitality, credit, criminal law, marketing, compliance and reputation are part of the same architecture.

And where everything begins with a signature.

🔹 In Nevada an unpaid marker is a criminal offence
🔹 The signatory is the only legally responsible party

In the operational model of Nevada casinos, money disappears from the scene.

The player:

does not use cash
does not make transfers
does not hand over a card

He signs a marker. That document:

is not internal
is not symbolic
is not an operational authorisation

It is a bank instrument enforceable for collection, equivalent to a cheque.

It contains:

amount
date
holder
repayment term

If it is not paid:

the debt ceases to be civil
it becomes a criminal offence.

This legal design exists to protect the economic heart of the system: credit.

“The experience may be hospitality; the structure is financial.”

From the judicial perspective of Nevada the process is linear:

credit is granted
the marker is signed
it is not paid on time
an arrest warrant is issued
detention occurs upon entering the US
payment is negotiated
payment extinguishes the criminal action

The promotional context, the travel format or the purpose of the gaming do not modify the responsibility of the signatory.

For the law:

the one who signs is the debtor.

In his own public explanation, Felman described a scheme of trips with covered expenses, VIP experience and access to gaming without having deposited his own money.

That perception is not exceptional.
It is how the hospitality model of the premium segment is built.

But the casino’s operating system is not symbolic.
It is financial.

At some point the document appears.
And that document does not distinguish between contexts.

HIGH ROLLER
✔ Verified wealth
✔ Analysed credit

MARKETING GUEST
✔ Symbolic value
✔ Plays without own money
✔ Signs the same obligation

Even if everything communicates hospitality, the financial circuit is absolute:

customer KYC
account opening
marker signature
chip issuance
gaming record
debt balance
presentation of the document for collection

Casinos are considered financial institutions under the scope of FinCEN.

This implies:

transaction monitoring
consistency between volume and economic profile
SAR reports in the event of any inconsistency

The host no longer manages only the experience.
He manages risk.

“Volume that does not match the economic profile is an automatic alert.”

For years the largest gaming volume in the world was not in Las Vegas but in Macau.
And it was generated by junkets.

Their system:

recruit players
finance their gaming
transport them
collect in the country of origin

allowed large amounts of capital to move outside the formal banking system.

It built the largest growth in the sector.
It also generated:

financial opacity
money laundering risks
parallel circuits

Regulatory pressure and control of transnational flows caused its collapse.

The consequence was global:

volume without traceability ceased to be business.

From that moment on, the definition of player value changed.

Today the centre is:

source of funds
wealth documentation
transactional profile

Hospitality may remain VIP.
Credit no longer exists without financial validation.

Operators separate:

real high value player
mass premium
marketing guest

each with different processes and limits.

“Today the player who can explain his money is worth more than the one who bets the most.”

In Europe: the debt is civil.
In most of Latin America: gaming credit does not exist.
In Nevada: default is criminal.

The fact is the same.
The consequence is completely different.

The recent history of international gaming is the transition from a volume-based model to a traceability-based model.

The Felman case works as an X-ray of that transition.

Because it shows the exact point where a VIP experience can become an international criminal obligation.

Not because of the amount wagered.
Not because of the result of the game.
But because of the nature of the document that is signed.

In the global gaming system, the distance between an invitation and a criminal case can be measured in the space occupied by a name at the bottom of a marker.

What is known for certain

The case is processed in the state of Nevada.
The debt comes from gaming credit (marker) granted by a Las Vegas casino.
The arrest warrant was issued from that jurisdiction.
The criminal process was closed after the agreement and payment of the debt.

What is NOT publicly confirmed

The name of the casino
The casino host
The specific VIP programme
Whether it was one property or more than one

And this is not accidental.

In these types of cases:

Criminal files usually identify the creditor as “casino” or “gaming establishment”.
Payment agreements often include confidentiality clauses.
Operators avoid direct media exposure due to reputational and regulatory impact.

Why it is coherent that it has not been disclosed

From the industry’s point of view:

it protects the operator before the regulator
it avoids associating brand + unpaid credit + public figure
it reduces the risk of cross-litigation
it is part of settlement agreements

Photo: La Nación.com