Legal representatives for the Victorian Royal Commission have asserted that Crown Resorts lacks the suitability to retain its gaming permit. They highlighted a series of transgressions and inadequate oversight revealed during proceedings as proof that the corporation is unqualified to manage a casino.
Adrian Finanzio, the assisting counsel to the Royal Commission, declared that the testimony unequivocally demonstrates Crown’s current unsuitability to possess a casino license. He proceeded to characterize the company as one where grave misconduct, unlawful actions, and highly improper behavior were either promoted or condoned due to an ethos that prioritized financial gain over all other considerations.
This mirrors the conclusions of the Bergin Report, which scrutinized Crown’s activities in New South Wales and ultimately resulted in the revocation of the company’s license in that jurisdiction. The report exposed critical deficiencies in Crown’s anti-money laundering protocols.
These concerns prompted the Royal Commission in Victoria to evaluate Crown’s eligibility to maintain a license within its borders. The state’s Premier, Daniel Andrews, has indicated his readiness to rescind Crown’s Melbourne casino license if the Commission advises such action.
Further intensifying the situation, the Commission has also disclosed that Crown might be indebted to the state for nearly half a billion Australian dollars in outstanding taxes. Although the precise sum remains contested, it is evident that this constitutes a substantial financial obligation.
Finanzio emphasized that Crown had inadequately addressed potential money laundering activities, reinforcing the assertion that the company is unfit to hold a casino license.
The Crown Resorts dominion is encountering significant difficulties. Their management of finances has come under scrutiny, and it appears they have fallen short in their efforts to prevent illicit operations within their gambling establishments.
Legal representatives for the Royal Commission have made their stance abundantly clear: permitting Crown to retain its license, even if it falls within Commissioner Finkelstein’s authority, would be a highly unfavorable resolution.
They contend that the transgressions at Crown have been so pervasive and appalling that the company’s standing is irreparably damaged. They assert that no degree of transformation can persuade the public that Crown merits holding a license or can be relied upon to function appropriately.
