Atlantic City casinos fined $107,500 for numerous violations


ATLANTIC CITY — New Jersey has fined two Atlantic City casinos $107,500 for a series of violations including improper use of security guards, allowing people who had banned themselves from casinos to gamble, and other transgressions.

In a decision made public Monday, the state Gaming Enforcement Division fined Harrah’s Resort Atlantic City $70,000 for improper security staffing levels.

It also issued four fines totaling $37,500 against Revel Casino Hotel for allowing self-excluded gamblers to make bets, failing to collect cards properly after a blackjack game, and violating security rules regarding the collection of cash boxes.

The casinos declined comment on the fines; they reached settlements with the state on each one.

Harrah’s was accused of failing to meet minimum staffing requirements on numerous occasions from November 2012 to last June. According to state casino regulators, Harrah’s gave security officers duties other than what they were supposed to be doing and assigned roving security guards to fixed locations.

The casino also failed to replace security officers who called in sick.

Revel was accused of letting two people on New Jersey’s self-exclusion list gamble in its casino in 2013. The state lets people who fear they have a gambling problem sign up for a list that bans them from gambling at any of the city’s 11 casinos.

On six dates from July 13 to Aug. 3 last year, a gambler identified only as “PY” was able to gamble at Revel for 27 hours. “PY” had signed up for the self-exclusion list, but Revel misspelled his name when entering information into its computers about self-excluded gamblers.

In a separate case, Revel was accused of letting a patron identified only as “AD” play blackjack on July 13 for nearly three hours before being detected.

Revel also was fined for improperly clearing and collecting the cards after a game of blackjack at which a patron was playing three hands at a time, betting $2,000 on each hand. When the customer disputed the outcome of one hand, the dealer wrongly reassembled the hand in question. That caused the patron to receive a win instead of a loss.

 

Comment section guidelines

The below comment section contains thoughts and opinions from users that in no way represent the views of the Las Vegas Review-Journal or GateHouse Media. This public platform is intended to provide a forum for users of reviewjournal.com to share ideas, express thoughtful opinions and carry the conversation beyond the article. Users must follow the guidelines under our Commenting Policy and are encouraged to use the moderation tools to help maintain civility and keep discussions on topic.