To be honest, I don't understand the purpose of the income statement requirement. In order to prevent money laundering, such a measure will not help in any way. In addition, for money laundering, the casino must be "pocket" or affiliated. The income statement is a measure to control expenses. However, the principle of cost control, primarily applies to government officials, and not to the first person you meet who enters the casino. Because cost control is an anti-corruption measure. Therefore, the connection of the casino with the control of expenses of an ordinary person is unclear to me. Or maybe I got something wrong?
I think the idea of casino income statements, may be based on a lot of assumptions that casinos are often the target of money laundering because of the large volume of cash transactions, so that with the existence of profit and loss statements and suspicious transaction reporting, of course corruption authorities can monitor casino financial activity and detect patterns that may indicate money laundering, although it may seem more relevant to do. But I think that actually it is also not effective to prevent money laundering.
I personally very rarely hear of casinos or officials who are involved has arrested in casinos, because they are considered to money laundering actions, I think those who supervise corruption also commit corruption, so that cats and mice only take care of each other for their own safety.