VSiN.com senior reporter
LAS VEGAS – This isn’t Ohio State.
If CG Technology came to the Nevada Gaming Commission hearing Thursday morning at the Grant Sawyer Building in downtown Las Vegas expecting the “Urban Meyer-slap-on-the-wrist” treatment, it was sadly mistaken.
The Commission voted unanimously, 5-0, to reject the proposed settlement of a fine of $250,000 in the case of the Gaming Control Board vs. CG Technology, which has pled guilty to four counts (self-reporting several of its gaming regulation violations) including accepting multiple wagers from outside state lines, accepting bets on games/events that had already been concluded, mispaying customers due to computing errors by its system and operating an unauthorized satellite sports betting station at a Super Bowl party.
Instead, the Commission said the penalty was too light considering CG Technology has previously been fined $5.5 million in 2014 and another $1.5 million in 2016, which led to the ouster of CEO Lee Amaitis, for previous regulatory violations. The Commission asked for further investigation and negotiation in the matter to come up with a more fair resolution, including possible revoking CG Technology’s gaming license.
Commission chairman Tony Alamo, who said the fine should be closer to the $1.5 million fine that was imposed two years ago, said: ““Revocation is not off the table.”
The Commission as a whole was obviously very unhappy with CG Technology. The Gaming Control Board, which addresses matters first and then gives recommendations to the Commission, had said the self-reporting was a mitigating factor in coming to its proposed $250,000 settlement, which also called for CGT to disband its sports betting system within six months and bring in a third-party system. Commission member Philip Pro said he wasn’t impressed about the self-reporting. “That’s not a mitigating factor in my view,” Pro said. “That’s what they’re supposed to do.” John Moran Jr. added, “This is not a fine issue; it’s a revocation issue.” Deborah J. Fuetch, the last to speak, summed it up.
“You’ve been called to the principal’s office three times,” Fuetch said. “Where do we draw the line? When do we not let the student come back to school?”
CG Technology’s lawyers asked for 90 days to re-state its case, Alamo gave them 30 days from the day they receive the copy of today’s official transcript, which will include a public comment from a Las Vegas resident who requested and was granted permission to comment anonymously (he spoke long after CGT’s lawyers had left Hearing Room 2450). The citizen stressed that CG Technology, as a three-time offender, has had ample chances to change things and shouldn’t be trusted again. He also asked for where the money went from all the mispaid tickets.