Attorneys for deposed casino entrepreneur Steve Wynn (pictured in a file photo) have again called for Nevada regulators to dismiss the notion that the state still has a disciplinary hold over him regarding gaming-related matters.
Their submission is the latest round in a war of words that began in October. In early November Mr Wynn’s legal team said the state had no right to discipline him as he was no longer in the gaming business.
The Nevada Gaming Commission is currently scheduled to hear on December 19 a number of complaints against the businessman lodged by the Nevada Gaming Control Board. The latter wants him to face the possibility of a fine as well as the loss of his “suitability” status and therefore his gaming licence.
Mr Wynn, founder and former chairman of United States-based casino operator Wynn Resorts Ltd, left the group in February 2018, amid multiple allegations he had engaged in sexual misconduct against female employees. He has denied wrongdoing. Wynn Resorts is the parent of Macau casino operator Wynn Macau Ltd.
Nevada’s Control Board said in a submission in late November that Mr Wynn’s departure from the firm was irrelevant, and that the state – via the Commission – has “‘full and absolute power and authority’ to revoke a finding of suitability” in relation to Mr Wynn’s fitness for a gaming licence.
But attorneys for Mr Wynn said in a document received on Monday by state authorities, that the Control Board had failed “to say a single word defending” the concept of what they referred to as ‘administrative hold’, which they said was “non-existent”.
Mr Wynn’s legal team also said that where the Control Board had mentioned Nevada statute in support of its claim of regulatory authority, the relevant laws were written using the present tense.
The entrepreneur’s lawyers interpreted that as evidence that Nevada’s disciplinary powers did not apply to people no longer involved in the state’s gaming sector.
Referring to Mr Wynn’s motion to dismiss the disciplinary matter, his lawyers stated in the latest document: “Grammar and tense matter, particularly in a penal setting where potential revocations and fines are at stake.”
