OFFENDER'S PLAYBOOK · 90–120 min · 1–6 players

The Laundromat

Twenty-five million dirty. Design the wash.

Three-stage board, placement, layering, integration. Design a laundering pipeline for €25m of proceeds, then flip to investigator mode and break your own pipeline.

⚑ You design the pipeline to understand it. Every card ends with 'How an investigator spots this'.

Other games

Learning objectives

01Build a coherent placement → layering → integration pipeline
02Trace where each stage is most detectable
03Reverse-engineer a pipeline as an FIU analyst

Standards mapping

FATF Recommendations and CPD credit

Learning objective	FATF
Build a coherent placement → layering → integration pipeline	R.3, R.32
Trace where each stage is most detectable	R.3, R.10, R.20
Reverse-engineer a pipeline as an FIU analyst	R.20, R.29

R.3 Money laundering offence. Placement, layering and integration are mapped to the elements of the offence.
R.10 Customer due diligence. Placement cards fail or survive on CDD strength.
R.20 Reporting of suspicious transactions. Heat values represent cumulative reporting triggers.
R.32 Cash couriers. Physical placement options carry declaration exposure.
R.29 Financial intelligence units. The investigator round is played from the FIU seat.

Also covers: UNTOC art. 6 · FATF Trade-Based Money Laundering (2020)

CPD credit rationale

2 structured hours (2 verifiable) — streams: AML/CFT compliance, FIU analysis, Financial investigation.

Hours are claimed against structured learning: facilitated play against a published set of learning objectives, decisions scored on a rubric, and a written debrief retained by the participant. Pipeline design plus a scored reverse-engineering round evidences both offender insight and detection skill.

Evidence retained: Pipeline card record with heat total; Investigator-round break sheet.

Table setup · 1–6 players

Best with 4–6 (2v2 or 3v3)

1Solo study

Design the pipeline, then break it yourself in investigator mode.

2Head-to-head

Launderer versus analyst across all three stages.

3–4Case cell

Two builders versus two breakers — the classic 2v2.

5–6Full table

3v3, or 2v2 plus a heat marshal and a compliance officer for a full control environment.

Seats at the table

S1Placement chiefGets the cash into the system.
S2Layering architectDesigns the movement and the narrative.
S3Integration managerLands the value in visible, spendable assets.
S4FIU analystBreaks the pipeline with intelligence moves.
S5Bank compliance officerPlays the control environment the pipeline must cross.
S6Facilitator / heat marshalTracks the heat meter and reads outcome cards.

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.
05Total heat above 30 ends the round immediately, the builders must self-report their own heat honestly.

Rotation — Sides swap after each pipeline; scores are compared across both sides of the table.

How to play

1.Draw 3 placement, 4 layering and 3 integration cards. Build a legal narrative for the €25m.
2.Cards have a 'heat' value. Total heat > 30 = automatic detection.
3.Investigator round: opposing player uses 5 investigator cards to break your structure.

Design the pipeline · €25,000,000Heat 0 / 30

Placement · pick 3

Layering · pick 4

Integration · pick 3

Session extension · +85 minutes

Take the session to full length.

Three additional facilitated missions with their own debrief checkpoints. Run them straight after the online round to take this title to a 60–120 minute workshop. Every checkpoint is self-marking — tick what you can genuinely defend.

A different predicate: €25m from procurement fraud rather than narcotics. The placement problem inverts.

Tasks

01Redraw the placement stage — the money is already in the banking system.
02Build layering that survives a supplier audit rather than a cash-deposit rule.
03Total the heat and compare it with your first pipeline.

Checkpoint · Mark the predicate difference.

You recognised that bank-origin proceeds skip placement and raise integration risk.
Your layering used invoices and contracts rather than cash instruments.

Debrief · discuss with your team

Q1.Which stage carried the highest heat and why?
Q2.Which investigator card would your service actually be able to play today?