close
close

Commission fines Nevada resort $250,000 for denying agents access – Las Vegas Review-Journal

Commission fines Nevada resort 0,000 for denying agents access – Las Vegas Review-Journal

Northern Nevada’s largest casino was fined $250,000 Monday by the Nevada Gaming Commission for denying a Nevada Gaming Control Board agent access to a theater in the Reno resort.

MEI-GSR Holdings LLC, operating as Grand Sierra Resort, did not contest the complaint issued by the Board of Control in October.

In the complaint, the Board of Control alleges that security at the resort prevented board officials from gaining access to the GSR Theater during a routine inspection at the property on Dec. 19.

The complaint says there was a similar event at the Grand Sierra Resort in January 2021, and the control board issued a violation letter in February 2021.

In this case, the resort hired security officers who were not properly registered with the Private Investigator Licensing Board to supplement their security staff.

In the settlement agreement, Senior Deputy Attorney General Michael Somps said the Grand Sierra Resort acknowledged the boarding agent was delayed access for about six minutes but was then allowed to enter the theater without being disarmed, but the agent chose to leave the premises after further discussion with security personnel.

The Grand Sierra Resort is owned by the same company that operates the Sahara in Las Vegas.

During Monday’s hearing, Somps was asked by commissioners why the agent was trying to enter the resort’s theater. Somps said Board of Control agents have broad discretion in entering any areas of a licensed casino-resort, citing examples from several years ago when agents chose to monitor resort nightclubs to investigate multiple allegations involving the use of drugs. Somps did not specifically cite what the agents were looking for in the December incident and said that while the Grand Sierra Resort estimated the agent’s entry delay was only six minutes, the review board testimony indicated the wait was longer.

“As you know, agents on board have access to all parts of the gaming establishment’s premises,” Somps said. “The definition of premises is essentially curb to curb. Why would a particular agent want to enter a no-gaming zone, because these no-gaming zones can also affect the politics of the state of Nevada, affect the reputation of the gaming industry and the reputation of Nevada. An example of this can go back to the disciplinary matters that were taken by the board against licensees for events that took place in their nightclubs that were outside of gaming.’

Contact Richard N. Velotta at [email protected] or 702-477-3893. Follow @RickVelotta on X.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *