← All games

Case Roundtable

A multi-role AML training game. Real cases move through a chorus of institutional actors — tax administrations, financial intelligence units, prosecutors, police, corporate lawyers, forensic accountants, investigative journalists, academics, bank compliance, chief compliance officers, company boards, audit committee chairs and external auditors. Play the round from each seat; every role sees the same scenario differently, and decisions branch.

Scenario design by Dr. Collen Lediga, Ruhr-Universität Bochum.

Table setup · 1–6 players

Best with 5–6 (one seat per institution)

1Solo study

Play all seats in sequence; the scorecard compares your four axes across the seats you argued.

2Head-to-head

One player takes the state seats (S1–S4), the other the private seats (S5–S6). Alternate who speaks first each round.

3–4Case cell

Take S1–S4. The facilitator or the app reads the private-side response after each locked decision.

5–6Full table

One player per seat, S1–S6. Full roundtable: each seat speaks once before any decision locks.

Seats at the table

  1. S1Revenue / tax auditorOwns the assessment, the audit trail and the reconstruction of taxable income.
  2. S2FIU analystOwns STR/SAR intelligence, typology matching and the escalation memo.
  3. S3ProsecutorOwns admissibility, charge selection and the standard of proof.
  4. S4Financial investigator / policeOwns tracing, seizure, restraint and witness sequencing.
  5. S5Corporate counsel / enablerArgues the defence position: privilege, legitimate structuring, procedural error.
  6. S6Board / compliance chairOwns the corporate response, self-report decision and remediation.

Team rules

  • 01One seat, one voice: a decision is only locked when the seat that owns it says so out loud.
  • 02Every locked decision needs a one-sentence justification the seat would defend in a real file.
  • 03Any player may call a 60-second 'case conference' once per round to force a table discussion.
  • 04The facilitator (or the highest-scoring player of the previous round) keeps time and reads the outcome cards.
  • 05Scoring is per seat and per table: a table can win on Detection while an individual seat loses on Due Process.

Rotation — Rotate seats one place clockwise after each scenario so everyone argues at least one adversarial seat.

The thirteen seats at the table

Choose a scenario

Scenario 1 — The Mining Minister

A minister of mines signs a fifteen-year concession. Two months later USD 12m arrives at a Panama company whose UBO is his brother-in-law. Three London flats follow.

Case facts
  • Concession signed 03/Jan; award value USD 4.2bn over 15 years.
  • USD 12m 'geological consulting fee' paid 12/Mar from BVI subsidiary of the mining company to Panama company 'Peninsular Andes SA'.
  • Peninsular Andes SA — UBO on incorporation form: brother-in-law of the minister.
  • Three London flats purchased through Jersey trust 'Alta Discretionary'.
  • National newspaper reporter obtains a partial leak of the Panama incorporation file.
Round 1 / 6Score Score 0 / 0

You are playing

Investigative Journalist

You work leaked-document datasets (Panama, Pandora, FinCEN Files) and tips. Publication is your leverage; you have no coercive powers.

You have the leaked incorporation file naming the brother-in-law. Publication window: 72 hours before a rival outlet has the story. What do you do first?