Inside Asian Gaming

INSIDE ASIAN GAMING MAY 2018 56 shall be found suitable if they are (a) a person of good character, honesty and integrity, (b) a person whose background, reputation and associations will not result in adverse publicity for the State of Nevada and its gaming industry and (c) a person with adequate business competence and experience for the role or position for which an application is made. The Macau Gaming Law determines that in the process of verifying the suitability of gaming concession bidders, the government will take into consideration, amongst others, the following criteria: (i) the experience and reputation of the bidder; (ii) the nature and reputation of the bidder’s group entities, particularly of its controlling shareholders and (iii) the character and reputation of the entities strictly associated with the bidder. Despite taking different approaches, both normatives agree on three main vectors of suitability: character, reputation and experience. However, none of them prescribe, perhaps rightly so, what the essential components of each vector are, the lack of which would render someone unsuitable. In leaving the concepts open, regulators are given the power and the responsibility to produce fair judgements on a case-by-case basis. Just as importantly, they are given the flexibility to adapt their approaches to changing societal expectations towards gaming and the people that are involved in it. In conducting their own investigations on the suitability of an entity or individual, regulators are also reserving their rights to independently act upon each other’s findings. This is where the issue of substance vs perception gains a cross-border dimension in the realm of suitability assessments. Should a regulator declare an individual unsuitable based solely on the possible adverse publicity the person’s declaration of unsuitability in another reputable jurisdiction may bring to its own market? Or, should it make its assessment exclusively on the grounds that certain facts or associations affect someone’s integrity in regards to their association with gaming, according to the prevailing social values in its own place and time? Ten years ago, Macau responded positively to the second question in its silent approach to Ms Ho’s case. Will it do the same today in respect of Mr Wynn and his former company? Whatever the answer to that question may be, we must all agree that the assessment of one’s suitability should always be driven by the desire to have the gaming industry led under the highest ethical standards. To let suitability investigations serve other purposes, may they be geopolitical, commercial or otherwise, would no doubt shake the pillar of the industry with unforeseeable consequences. Like everything else, such consequences will be felt globally. When looking into one’s suitability, we are assessing the moral principles that govern that person’s behavior in conducting his or her business activity. Ethics are therefore the ends of a suitability investigation. However, in that process, let us not forget that ethics should also guide its means. RULES OF THE GAME Las Vegas has similar guidelines to Macau when it comes to assessing a person’s suitability for the local gaming industry The future of Wynn Boston Harbor remains clouded with Massachusetts regulators currently investigating whether Wynn Resorts is suitable for a gaming license in the state.