Star Entertainment’s woes continue, after weeks of speculation surrounding its solvency. Now, the court has heard further from the ongoing lawsuit between it and the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC).
The lawsuit targets nine former executives and directors, bringing allegations of lack of checks and management of risk. This includes potential money laundering from one of its own private betting rooms, Salon 95.
An ex-chief legal and risk officer for the firm broke down in tears during the hearing. Paula Martin said that “with the benefit of hindsight” the business should have cut ties with an Asian gambling junket provider that was potentially carrying out money laundering schemes under their nose.
Gambling junkets are provided to high rollers, allowing them to spend big at casinos, without worrying about food and drink. The provider, Suncity, allegedly has ties to criminal activity. According to reports, Martin was informed of this in 2018 but took no immediate action.
In court, ASIC’s barrister James Arnott detailed an exchange of $100,000 AUD ($63,706.78 USD) handed over in a brown bag. This particular one showed a man being taken to the service desk and then handed the bag of cash before being handed to another person. Each person then returned to the service desk where the cash was handed back.
According to Arnott that was “indicative of money laundering conduct to seek to disguise the origin of funds.”
Suncity has criminal connections
Alvin Chau, the man behind Suncity, was arrested in 2021 by Macau Judiciary Police. In 2023, he was sentenced to 18 years for illegal gambling and fraud operations.
Part of this was an extraordinary HK$823.7 billion ($106 billion) in illegal bets. One of the sticking points in the prosecution is that the government lost out on HK$8.26 billion in tax income.
Star Entertainment ex-head comments on money laundering possibilities
However, Martin did explain their point of view in court:
“Without knowing the relationship between the individuals involved, there could be other possibilities. I don’t know what other arrangements the individual in concern may have in place with the junket operator.
“My thinking there is that junket participants play on junkets with junket promoters across a number of properties, and may have other dealings between each other, and not all participants play on all the same junkets.”
