A VGCCC investigation found 242 people who had self-excluded from gambling to place bets at Crown Melbourne casino. This was deemed a breach of the Victoria Casino Control Act 1991.
Publishing its written reasons for the fine, the VGCCC said it identified the failings during ongoing monitoring of Crown. The self-excluded players were able to gamble at Crown Melbourne over an eight-month period between October 2023 and May 2024.
In total, these players gambled a total of 451 during the period in question. The length of players’ visits ranged from one hour to 10 hours, with some gambling as many as 27 times.
Specifically, this was deemed a breach of Section 76C of the Act. This states it is an offence to allow self-excluded players to gamble at a casino.
“Allowing self-excluded persons to remain on the premises for extended periods not only undermines the integrity of the exclusion system but also exposes these vulnerable individuals to heightened risk of gambling harm,” the VGCCC said.
“The failure to promptly identify and remove self-excluded persons from the casino raises serious concerns about the adequacy of the Crown’s surveillance and monitoring of excluded persons.”
Crown also rapped for permitting access to self-excluded players
The VGCCC also identified a further concern whereby 427 self-excluded persons gained access to Crown Melbourne. This group of players were able to enter the casino a total of 750 times during the monitoring period.
This specifically related to Section 76B of the Act. However, the VGCCC did not see this as serious as 76C and acknowledged Crown had taken steps to mitigate further risks.
“Entry into the casino of itself is not sufficient to establish a contravention of section 76B,” the Victoria regulator said. “To establish a contravention of Section 76B, we need to be satisfied Crown did not take “all reasonable steps” to prevent excluded patrons from entering and/or remaining in the casino.”
Crown argued it did take such steps to prevent excluded persons from entering or remaining in the casino. While the VGCCC accepted this, the high volume of those entering during the monitoring period is of “significant concern”
“This highlights potential gaps in Crown’s systems and controls for preventing excluded persons from entering the casino,” the VGCCC said. “Despite the steps taken thus far, these occurrences indicate that the implemented measures have not sufficiently mitigated the risks.”
Crown only faces punishment for one breach
Ruling on the case, the VGCCC determined that Crown should only be punished for the 76C breaches. It added that the 76C failings were identified as being more serious.
On the 76C breaches, the VGCCC accepted the failings stemmed from system and control failures. This was rather than deliberate or egregious disregard by Crown for regulatory obligations. The regulator also noted Crown has, and continues, to take steps to improve its processes to prevent future risks.
In addition, the VGCCC recognised there were several instances where players continued to find ways to enter the casino and gamble, despite being warned by Crown staff. It said these players demonstrated persistent attempts to circumvent the exclusion measures in place, “exploiting vulnerabilities” in the casino’s systems.
The maximum fine Crown could have faced for breach of the Act is $100m. However, this is reserved for the most serious category of contraventions. On this occasion, Crown must pay pay $2m within 28 days of the date of the written reasons (14 October).
Crown failed Victoria players
Commenting on the case, VGCCC chair Fran Thorn said Crown failed its obligation to protect people at risk of harm.
“Those who self-exclude must be able to trust that gambling providers will take all reasonable steps to enforce their decision to avail themselves of this harm prevention initiative,” Thorn said.
“By allowing people who have self-excluded to enter the casino and gamble, Crown has put them at risk of experiencing further gambling harm. However, it is also clear that a number of these self-excluded patrons are going to considerable lengths to avoid detection and break their exclusion requirements.”
Thorn added that while Crown has made some improvements to its systems, the VGCCC will continue to work with the group to further strengthen its controls.
“Accordingly, the Commission has issued a direction to Crown to engage an independent expert to assess the effectiveness of, and make recommendations for improving, the management of its self-exclusion program. In due course, Crown will be required to implement the independent expert’s recommendations,” Thorn said.
“The VGCCC is committed to ensuring Crown continues its reform efforts.”
Another fine in Victoria
Crown is the second operator this week to face regulatory action in Victoria. Yesterday (14 October), it was also revealed that Australian Leisure and Hospitality Group has been fined AU$177,500 for allowing minors to gamble and enter gaming areas.
This was the latest prosecution is part of a suite of actions against venues and Tabcorp for allowing a minor to gamble. Several rulings have already been made in this case, while two actions remain before the Magistrates’ Court.
As for Crown, it has a history of regulatory breaches in the state.
In November 2022, the VGCCC issued Crown Resorts two fines totalling a record $120m for a series of failings. The VGCCC said Crown failed its responsible service of gambling obligations over a number of years. Customers gambled for long periods without a break, sometimes for more than 24 hours, it found.
This came in the wake of the Royal Commission into casino licences. The Commission was scathing in its criticism of what it deemed “illegal, dishonest, unethical and exploitative” behaviour.
In October 2021, the report published by the inquiry deemed the casino “unsuitable” to hold a casino licence in Victoria. However, Crown it added should not immediately lose its licence due to the potential economic impact.
Earlier this year, the VGCCC ruled Crown could keep its licence and continue operating the Melbourne casino despite the earlier failings. This followed widespread changes at the casino in the wake of the Commission.