Inside Asian Gaming

IAG MAY 2021年5月 亞博匯 47 專欄 trust in the credibility, integrity and stability of casino operations [emphasis added].” This definition does not apply to restrict the breadth of Finkelstein’s assessment of whether the public interest is served by allowing Crown Melbourne to continue to hold the Victorian casino license. His powers do not derive from VCGLR, or the Casino Control Act; they are drawn from the Inquiries Act of 2014, which gives the Commissioner greatly enhanced powers and jurisdiction to pursue the Terms of Reference. An example demonstrates the point. Casino operations, as the VCGLR’s yardstick for determining whether the public interest is served by the licensee, are essentially the internal processes and systems deployed in the conduct of permitted gaming activities. Not included are matters such as the quality and independence of governance of the entity holding the license, its compliance with legislation other than that regulating the casino license and the conduct of gaming (such as anti-money laundering laws), and the contribution that the casino may make to the welfare and economic development of Victoria. Although those matters are not criteria relevant to the statutory license reviews conducted by VCGLR, they are clearly within the purview of factors to which 和珀斯的牌照營運實體之資格性方面進行了大量工作，可以預期 Finkelstein將集中時間應對職權範圍D項所指的「皇冠墨爾本繼 續在維多利亞州持有賭牌是否符合公共利益。」調查是由皇家調 查委員會，還是博彩監管機構所委託進行的，這一點就顯得很重 要。 維州的《娛樂場管制法》要求VCGLR定期審查一系列事項，包 括皇冠墨爾本是否符合資格持有賭牌，以及其賭牌持續生效是否 符合公共利益。該法案將公共利益的定義交予監管機構所釐定， 並需考慮「建立和維護公眾對娛樂場營運的信譽、完整性和穩定 性之信心和信任（強調為重點）。」 該定義沒有限制Finkelstein的評估範圍，評估是否允許皇冠 墨爾本繼續持有維州賭牌便能符合公共利益。其權力不來自於 VCGLR或《娛樂場管制法》，而是來自《調查法（2014年）》，該法律 讓調查委員會主席在行使職權範圍方面擁有更大的權力和管轄 權。 以下例子可說明這一點。在VCGLR釐定牌照持有人是否滿足 公共利益的標準上，娛樂場營運實質是指在進行允許的博彩活動 時所採用的內部流程和系統，並不包括持牌實體的管理質量和獨 立性、其在與非賭牌及博彩活動相關的法規之遵守情況（例如反 洗黑錢法），以及娛樂場對維州的社會福利和經濟發展作做出的 貢獻等事項。 儘管這些事項並不是VCGLR所進行的法定牌照之審查標準， 但顯然屬於皇家調查委員會可能考慮的因素，以釐定皇冠墨爾本 繼續持有及利用賭牌是否符合公共利益。