SUGARHOUSE HSP G, L.P. COMMONWEALTH OF d/b/a SUGARHOUSE CASINO GAMING IDENTIFICATION NO. 1356 GAMING CONTROL BOARD IN RE: FAILURE TO PROPERLY REFERRALS ADDRESS AUTOMATED SHUFFLER WARNINGS TABLE GAME INTEGRITY 8286-1 8 CONSENT AGREEMENT AND STIPULATION OF SETTLEMENT THIS CONSENT AGREEMENT AND STIPULATION 0F SETTLEMENT is made and entered into by and between the Of?ce of Enforcement Counsel and SugarHouse HSP Gaming, LP. dfb/a SugarHouse Casino (?SugarHouse?) SugarHouse and OEC collectively are referred to as the ?Parties?; and WHEREAS, SugarHouse is a limited partnership organized and existing under the laws of Delaware and at all times referenced herein, has its business of?ce located at 1080 North Delaware Avenue, Philadelphia, PA, 19125. SugarHouse is a Category 2 slot machine licensee; and OEC is the prosecutorial body established by 4 ?1517(a.2) and has the power and duty to initiate proceedings for administrative violations of the Race Horse Development and Gaming Act (Gaming Act) pursuant to ?1517(a.2) (1) of the Act; and WHEREAS, SugarHouse and OEC, through their authorized representatives, have investigated the events that are the subject of this Consent Agreement (?Events?), have conferred extensively on the Events, and now desire to conclusively and amicably resolve all matters arising out of the Events, and enter into a Consent Agreement before the ?ling of a Complaint, pursuant to 58 Pa. Code which provides that ?[p]arties may propose consent agreements at any time prior to the entry of a ?nal order?; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Condition 1 of the Statement of Conditions to its Category 2 License, signed on September 22, 2009, SugarHouse agreed ?To at all times comply with any and all provisions of the Race Horse Development and Gaming Act and any rules, regulations, technical standards or orders in effect as of this date or later amended or promulgated by the Board?; and WHEREAS, pursuant to 4 1102(1), the primary objective of the Act to which all other objectives and purposes are secondary is to protect the public through the regulation and policing of all activities involving gaming and practices that continue to be unlawful; and WHEREAS, pursuant to 4 1202(a)( 1), of the Act, the Gaming Control Board (?Board?) is responsible for ensuring the integrity of table games and has sole regulatory authority over every aspect of the authorization, operation and play of table games; and WHEREAS, pursuant to 4 1331 of the Act, ?Any licensee, key employee or gaming employee shall have a duty to: (1) provide any assistance or information required by the board and the State Police and to cooperate in any inquiry, investigation or hearing: and (3) inform the board of any actions which they believe would constitute a violation of this part. . . WHEREAS, pursuant to 4 l3A25Cb)(11), of the Act, a table games certi?cate holder is required to establish procedures and rules governing the conduct of each table game and the responsibility of the employees related to the table games; and WHEREAS, pursuant to section 46521.1 of the Board?s Regulations (58 Pa. Code 4653.1 slot machine licensee?s system of internal controls must also include. . . (1) A surveillance department. . . The surveillance department shall be responsible for the following: (ix) The provision of immediate notice to. . . the casino compliance representatives. . . at the licensed facility upon detecting, and also upon commencing video recording of, an individual who is engaging in or attempting to engage in, . . .a violation of this part or other illegal activities. . and WHEREAS, pursuant to section 465a.9A - Surveillance Department Standard Operating Procedure Manual, of SugarHouse? 3 Internal Controls, which were last approved by the Board on October 21, 2014: ll. Responsibility ?The Surveillance Department is responsible for, . . . G. The noti?cation of the. . . Gaming Control Board upon detection and recording of. . . other illegal activities?; and WHEREAS, pursuant to section 465a.9A Surveillance Department Standard Operating Procedure Manual, of SugarHouse?s Internal Controls, which were last approved by the Board on October 21, 2014: Surveillance Logs daily log of activities and incident reports are recorded in the iTrak System by Surveillance Of?cers or above. The iTrak System includes at a minimum the following: C. When. . .suspected or alleged regulatory violations . . . is involved, the reason for the surveillance. . . and a brief description of the activity in which the person being monitored is engaged?; and WHEREAS, pursuant to section of the Board?s Regulations (58 Pa. Code table games certi?cate holder may utilize a dealing shoe or other device that automatically reshuf?es and counts the cards; and WHEREAS, pursuant to section of the Board?s Regulations (58 Pa. Code if an automated shuf?ing device is utilized, Blackjack is played with two decks in the following manner: (1) the cards are separated into two batches with equal numbers of cards in each batch; (2) the cards in each batch must be of the same design but the back of the cards in one batch must be of a different color than the cards in the other batch; (3) one batch of cards shall be shuf?ed and stored in the automated card shuf?ing device While the other batch is being used to play the game; (4) both batches of cards shall be continuously alternated in and out of play, with each batch being used for every other dealing shoe; (5) the cards from only one batch may be placed in the discard rack at any given time; and WHEREAS, pursuant to section of SugarHouse?s Internal Controls, which were approved by the Board on March 26, 2013, an automated card shuf?ing device is utilized by the dealer to shuf?e cards; and WHEREAS, pursuant to section of the Board?s Regulations (58 Pa. Code ?If an automated card shuf?ing device is being used and the device jams, stops shuf?ing or fails to complete a shuf?ing cycle, the cards shall be reshuf?ed?; and WHEREAS, pursuant to section of the Board?s Regulations (58 Pa. Code 63 3a. 14011)), ?If an automated shuf?ing device malfunctions and cannot be used, the device must be covered or have a sign indicating that it is out of order placed on the device before any other method of shuf?ing may be utilized at that table?; and WHEREAS, pursuant to section of the Board?s Regulations (58 Pa Code ?Poker shall be played with one deck of cards that are identical in appearance . . Two decks of cards with different color backs shall be maintained for use at each Poker table at all times. Each deck shall be continuously alternated in and out of play with each deck being used for every round of play?; and WHEREAS, pursuant to section of the Board?s Regulations (58 Pa. Code ?Immediately prior to the commencement of play . . . after each round of play (Poker) has been completed . . . the dealer shall shuf?e the cards, either manually or by use of an automated card shuf?ing device, so that the cards are randomly intermixed?; and WHEREAS, pursuant to section of SugarHouse?s Internal Controls, which were approved by the Board on March 26, 2013, an automated card shuf?ing device is utilized by the dealer to shuf?e cards; and WHEREAS, pursuant to section of Sugarl?Iouse?s Internal Controls, which were approved by the Board on July 30, 2014, ?Immediately prior to the commencement of play . . . after each round of play (Poker) has been completed . . - the Dealer will shuf?e the cards, by use of an automated card shuf?ing device, so that the cards are randomly intermixed?; and WHEREAS, pursuant to section 627a.3(a) and of the Board?s Regulations (58 Pa. Code 627a.3(a) and ?Except as provided in subsection Minibaccarat shall be played with six to eight decks of cards that are identical in appearance and two cover cards. If an automated card shuf?ing device is utilized, Minibaccarat shall be played with 12 to 16 decks of cards in accordance with the following requirements: (1) The cards shall be separated into two batches with an equal number of decks included in each batch. (5) The cards from only one batch shall be placed in the discard rack at any given time?; and WHEREAS, pursuant to section 627a.5 of SugarHouse?s Internal Controls, which were approved by the Board on March 13, 2013, subsection indicates ?The MD3 automated shuf?ing device (for Minibaccarat) is utilized. The MD3 automated shuf?ing device shuf?es eight decks at a time. When eight decks are being dealt the other set is being shuf?ed.? Pursuant to subsection ?In the event of a shuf?er malfunction and there is no back up shut?er to use the Dealer will perform the Standard Manual Shuf?e -. - and WHEREAS, the Parties do not dispute the jurisdiction of the Board; and WHEREAS, the Parties now seek to enter into this Consent Agreement as an accord, satisfaction and compromise of any disputed claims and in consideration of the Parties waiving, releasing, and forbearing any regulatory diSpute; and WHEREAS, the DEC has not previously entered into a Consent Agreement with SugarHouse regarding the improper handling of warning lights and malfunctions of card shuf?ing devices which impacted the integrity of Blackjack, Poker and Minibaccarat games. NOW, THEREFORE, the Parties stipulate and agree, and present to the Board for its consideration, the following: STIPULATED FACTS 921m On June 12, 2017, the Bureau of Casino Compliance referred violations of the Gaming Act, the Board?s regulations and SugarHouse?s Internal Controls. On May 28, 2017, SugarHouse Table Games Shift Manager Patty Chang (GID #52549) reported to the BCC that Shuf?e Master Technician Thomas Sears (GID #6305) had discovered 16 purple playing cards in an automated card shuf?ing device (shuf?er). Table Games Shift Manager Chang advised the BCC that an investigation by the Surveillance Department had been initiated. On May 29, 2017, Surveillance Of?cer Daniel Dumin (GID #6289) reported to the BCC that a surveillance review of the found cards had been completed and the coverage had been saved. Surveillance Of?cer Dumin reported that Table Games Shi? Manager Chang had requested a review after ?ve (5) cards were found in a shuf?er by a Shuf?e Master Technician. Per Surveillance Of?cer Durnin?s report on May 27, 2017, the shuf?er at the Blackjack game on table BJ-906 began ?ashing red indicating there was a mal?mction with the machine. SugarHouse Table Games Floor Supervisor Kristina Egger- Strumolo (GID #8 83 05) removed the cards ?orn the shuf?er and then placed them back in the machine. The shuf?er began ?ashing red again. Supervisor Egger-Strumolo removed the six decks from the shuf?er and took the machine off the Blackjack game table 81-906 and eventually placed the shuf?er on the ?oor at table where it remained until the shuf?er was taken to the Table Games Department of?ce at 4:21 pm. on May 27, 2017. Surveillance Of?cer Durnin?s report concluded that the six decks with the missing cards were not used after some of the cards were jammed in the shuf?er. A compliance review by the BCC found that SugarHouse?s internal investigation was not accurate and revealed the following information. compliance review con?rmed that there were 16 cards from the six decks in play stuck in the shuf?er: an Ace and Seven of Diamonds; a Seven, Eight, Ten and King of Spades; two Aces of Clubs as well as a Four, Six and Queen of Clubs; and a Two, Six, two Eights and an Ace of Hearts. The 16 cards were sent for destruction. On May 31, 2017, the BCC conducted its own surveillance review of the incident and it was discovered that the six decks that were short 16 cards (?illegitimate decks?) were put back in play after the shuf?er malfunctioned and it was removed from the Blackjack game on table with the 16 cards inside. review found that the illegitimate decks were originally placed in play on May 27, 2017, at 5:08 am. when they were placed in the shuf?er at the Blackjack game on table BJ-906. The shuf?er ?rst malfunctioned at 5:29 am. and again at 5:38 am. being addressed both times by Supervisor Egger-Strumolo who returned the illegitimate decks to the shuf?er each time. At 5:43 am. the dealer on the Blackjack game on table BJ-906, Mary Seeger (GID #82754), experienced another malfunction with the shuf?er and removed the illegitimate decks and placed the illegitimate decks behind the discard rack. At 5 :44 am. Supervisor Egger-Strumolo removed the shuf?er from the Blackjack game on table and placed it on the ?oor at table Supervisor Egger?Strumolo took the shuf?er on table BJ-904 and moved it to the Blackjack game on table BJ-906. At 5:46 am. Supervisor Egger-Strumolo was recorded on surveillance placing the illegitimate decks that were short 16 cards into the new shuf?er on table BJ-906. At 5:54 am. surveillance coverage showed that the red warning light activated on the new shuf?er on table BJ-906. At 5:58 am. Dealer Seeger was relieved by Dealer Aaron Christmas #86873) who noticed the red warning light and requested Supervisor Egger-Strumolo. The illegitimate decks were removed from the new shuf?er by Supervisor Egger?Strumolo who adjusted the illegitimate decks and returned it to the shuffler. Surveillance coverage showed that the red warning light activated again. At 6:17 am. Dealer Christmas summoned Supervisor Egger?Strurnolo. At 6:18 am. Dealer Christmas removed the illegitimate decks from the shuffler and placed them in the dealing shoe. At 6:19 am. Dealer Christmas was relieved by Dealer Seeger who immediately began manually dealing the illegitimate decks to patrons. From 6:19 am. to 6:38 am. Dealer Seeger dealt 29 rounds of Blackjack to three patrons resulting in 76 individual hands from the illegitimate decks that were short 16 cards. At the end of the shoe, Dealer Seeger placed the illegitimate decks in the new shuf?er. At 6:47 am. the red warning light activated on the shuf?er. SugarHouse Table Games Floor Supervisor Sabrina Harrell (GID #53524) responded to the shuf?er on table BJ-906 at 6:53 am. She adjusted the illegitimate decks and returned them to the shuf?er. At 7:02 am. the red warning light activated again on the shuffler. At 7:07 am. Dealer Seeger removed the illegitimate decks from the shuf?er, placed them in the dealing shoe and began dealing the cards to patrons. From 7:10 am. to 7:27 am. Dealer Seeger dealt 17 rounds of Blackjack to four patrons resulting in 46 individual hands from the illegitimate decks that was short 16 cards. surveillance review revealed that the illegitimate decks were taken out of play at 7:30 am. when the cards were changed at the Blackjack game on table Bl 906. The illegitimate decks were not counted at that time but simply placed in a clear bag for processing. The original malfunctioning shuf?er with the 16 missing cards remained on the ?oor near table 904 until 11:37 am. when it was moved by SugarHouse Table Games Shift Manager James Weaver (GID #53795) and placed next to the pit stand where it remained until Dealer Francisco Vazquez (GID #8098 9) took it to the Table Games Shift Manager?s of?ce at 4:21 pm. on May 27, 2017. The 16 missing cards were discovered the next day by the Shuf?e Master technician. The Blackjack game on table B1 906 was never shutdown while Sugarchse supervisory personnel were attempting to resolve a problem with the automatic shuf?er. This impacted the integrity of the Blackjack game on table B1 906 for 36 minutes. SugarHouse personnel did not advise the ?ve patrons on the Blackjack game of the error on the 122 hands dealt with the illegitimate decks missing 16 cards. The BCC reported that two of the ?ve patrons could not be identi?ed because they were unrated or refused to provide their names. The other three patrons were rated players and were identi?ed. The BCC compliance review determined the win/loss record for the ?ve patrons. In the ?rst segment (6:19 am. to 6:38 am.) when the illegitimate decks were missing 16 cards, only one of the three patrons on the game won more hands (two) than they loss. The patron in spot one played 29 hands during this time segment, winning 14 hands totaling $950, losing 12 hands totaling $700 and three hands being a push for a total of $175 . The patron in spot three played 18 hands during this time segment, winning six hands totaling $200 and losing 12 hands totaling $475. The patron in spot six played 29 hands during this time segment, winning 12 hands totaling $600, losing 13 hands totaling $625 and four hands being a push for a total of $200. In the second segment (7:10 am. to 7:27 am.) when the illegitimate 10 decks were missing 16 cards, none of the up to ?ve patrons on the game won more hands than they loss. The patron who played spots one and two played 15 hands during this time segment, winning four hands totaling $200, losing 10 hands totaling $5,500 and one hand being a push for a total of $50. The patron in Spot three played eight hands during this time segment, winning two hands totaling $60, losing ?ve hands totaling $155 and one hand being a push for a total of $50. The patron in spot four played four hands during this time segment, losing all four hands for a total of $85. The patron in spot six only played nine hands during this time segment, winning two hands totaling $150 and losing seven hands totaling $325. The patron who played spots ?ve and six played seven hands during this time segment, winning two hands totaling $125 and losing ?ve hands totaling $375. SugarHouse personnel did not provide the patrons with any kind of reimbursement. SugarHouse personnel failed to properly address a warning light on a shuf?er resulting in the breach of the integrity of a Blackjack game. This resulted in violations of the Gaming Act, the Board?s regulations and SugarHouse?s Internal Controls. Additionally, SugarHouse?s Surveillance Department failed to adequately review and report the violations that occurred at the blackjack table. SugarHouse took disciplinary action against one employee involved in this incident. Table Games Supervisor Egger-Strumolo received a Performance Improvement Notice-Written Warning Level 1. In addition, the Director of Table Games sent an email to the Table Games Shift Managers with a ?read and sign? memorandum regarding red lights on shuf?ing devices. The ?read and sign? memorandum was issued on September 5, 2017. ll Count II SH-E-0516579-17 On October 17, 2017, the BCC referred violations of the Gaming Act, the Board?s regulations and SugarHouse?s Internal Controls. On September 26, 2017, SugarHouse Surveillance Of?cer Walter Tomlinson (GID #84389) reported to the BCC that a shuf?er malfunctioned in Pit Six on the Blackj aok game on table B1 607. A surveillance review found that on September 3, 2017, at 10:01 pm. the shuf?er at the Blackjack game on table BJ 607 began ?ashing red indicating there was a malfunction with the machine or with the cards contained therein. Dealer Brittany Jackson (GID #97958) requested that Table Games Supervisor William Marshall (GID #68111) respond to table BJ 607 at 10:07 pm. Supervisor Marshall removed the cards from the shuf?er and placed them on the Pit Stand at 10:09 p.111. Supervisor Marshall began counting the set of six decks from the shuffler on table at 10:10 pm. While this was occurring, the second set of decks last removed from the shuf?er on table were in the shoe and in play. At 10:22 p. Table Games Supervisor Sung Fitzmaurice (GID #49988) recounted the ?rst set of cards removed from the shuf?er and con?rmed that the set of six decks was missing one card. At 10:26 p. Table Games Supervisor Vincent Math (GID #51470) installed a new shuffler on the Blackjack game on table At 10:32 Supervisor itzmaurice inspected the removed shuf?er from table but did not ?nd the missing card. After the set of decks in the new shuf?er on table BJ-607 were ?nished shuf?ing, the decks were removed from the new shuf?er by Supervisors Math and Marshall and counted at 10:44 pm. Supervisor Marshall found the missing card in the second set of decks at 10:45 pm. The missing card was placed back in the ?rst set of decks, completing 12 both sets, and Supervisor Marshall returned both sets to the Blackjack game on table BI 607 and put them back into play. As a result of the missing card, the ?rst set of decks was in play for 15 minutes, from 9:39 pm. to 9:54 pm, while one of the decks was one card short. Additionally, because of the missing card, the second set of decks was in play for 50 minutes, from 9:54 p.m. to 10:44 pm, with one extra card. During this time segment 60 hands were dealt to six patrons on the game at different times. Two of the six patrons were rated and identi?ed. The other four patrons were not rated and not identi?ed. One of the rated and identi?ed patrons played four hands during this time segment and loss a total of $25. The other rated and identi?ed patron played 18 hands and loss a total of $45. Two of the four unidenti?ed patrons totaled winning amounts of $15 and $45 after the 60 hands were dealt with the illegitimate decks. Ultimately, SugarHouse came out $255 ahead after the 60 hands were dealt with the illegitimate decks. The Blackjack game on table B1 607 was never shutdown while SugarHouse supervisory personnel were looking for the missing card. This impacted the integrity of the Blackjack game on table BJ 607 for more than one hour. While SugarHouse personnel reported to the BCC that they did not receive any complaints from patrons, it is unknown whether the patrons on the Blackjack game on table 131 607 knew they were playing with decks that were either one card short or had one card too many. SugarHouse personnel failed to properly address a warning light on a shut?er resulting in the breach of the integrity of a Blackjack game. This resulted in violations of the Gaming Act, the Board?s regulations and SugarHouse?s Internal Controls. Although SugarHouse took no disciplinary action against the employees involved in this incident, Table Games Manager Rita Colletti (GID #51450) advised the BCC that 13 the Table Games Department staff involved in this incident received verbal coaching and were refreshed on the proper procedure for addressing shuf?er malfunctions. Count SHE-051241247 On October 18, 2017, the BCC referred violations of the Gaming Act, the Board?s regulations and SugarHouse?s Internal Controls. On September 23, 2017, SugarHouse Surveillance Of?cer Adam Hebeler (GID #97513) reported to the BCC that a shuffler malfunctioned in the Poker Room at the Poker game on table PK 1217, a tournament table. A surveillance review found on September 23, 2017, at 3:28 pm. the green light on the shuffler at the Poker game on table began blinking. The shuf?er was on sort mode instead of shuf?e mode. Surveillance coverage showed that Dealer Javier Bermudez (GID #59617) continued to deal 16 hands while the shu?ler was set in sort mode. The surveillance coverage also showed that the cards dealt in these 16 hands were in sequential order and in the same suit. At 3 :55 pm. Dealer Bermudez advised Poker Supervisor Dawn Oliver (GID #84007) of the malfunction. Supervisor Oliver corrected the setting on the shu?ler to the proper mode-shuf?e. While SugarHouse personnel reported to the BCC that they did not receive any complaints from patrons, it is unknown whether the patrons playing poker on table PK 1217 knew they were playing with two decks that were sorted and not in random order. None of the patrons on the Poker game on table PK 1217 were eliminated from the tournament during the time the 16 improper hands were dealt. The BCC investigation did not identify and did not determine the win/loss record for the patrons during the time the integrity of the Poker game was affected. 14 SugarHouse personnel failed to properly address a blinking light on a shu?ler resulting in the breach of the integrity of a Poker game. This resulted in violations of the Gaming Act, the Board?s regulations and SugarHouse?s Internal Controls. SugarHouse took disciplinary action against one employee involved in this incident. Dealer Javier Bermudez received a Performance Improvement Notice?Written Warning Level 1. Count IV SH-E-0513936-17 On October 17, 2017, the BCC referred violations of the Gaming Act, the Board?s regulations and SugarHouse?s Internal Controls. On September 26, 2017, SugarHouse Surveillance Of?cer Walter Tomlinson (GED #84389) reported to the BCC that a regulatory violation had occurred involving the eight decks of cards involved in play in the Minibaccarat games on tables WT 1501 and WT 1502(an electronic table game) in Pit 2. An investigation of a shuf?er malfunction by Table Games Pit Manger James Weaver (GID #53 795) resulted in a determination that. the eight decks in the game on table WT 1502 were four cards short and the eight decks in play on table WT 1501 had four extra cards. A surveillance review by BCC found that on September 26, 2017, at 1:13 pm. the dealer on the Minibaccarat game on table WT 1502, Hayford arpa (GID #51666), placed four cards from the game he was dealing in the discard rack for the Minibaccarat game on table WT 1501. The error went undetected and Dealer arpa continued to deal the Minibaccarat game on table WT 1502. Dealer Jarpa was relieved by Fazila Chowdhury (GID #81161) at 1:57 who was relieved by Alice Cao (GID #85546). At 2:18 pm. Dealer Chowdhury relieved Dealer Cao. At 2:24 pm. the shoe was completed. Dealer 15 Chowdhury was recorded on surveillance coverage removing the remaining cards in the shoe and the cards in the discard rack then placing them in the shuf?er, with the eight decks four cards short. Dealer Chowdhury repeated this conduct at 2:26 pm. returning the short decks to the shuf?er to be put back in play on table WT 1502. At 2:29 pm. the shoe on table WT 1501 was completed and Dealer Chowdhury was recorded on surveillance coverage removing the remaining cards in the shoe and the cards in the discard rack then placing them in the shuf?er with the four extra cards. Surveillance coverage showed that at 2:34 pm. the red light on the shuf?er for table WT 1502 began to ?ash indicating an error was found during the shuf?e. Neither Dealers Chowdhury nor Cao took any action in regard to the red light on the shuf?er for table WT 15 02 and both continued to deal and attend to the Minibaccarat games, relieving one another occasionally. At 3 :49 pm. the red light on the shuffler for table WT-1501 began to ?ash indicating an error was found during the shuf?e. Dealer Chowdhury was recorded on surveillance coverage addressing the red light by locating four extra cards and placing them with the affected decks and placing the cards in the shuffler for a second shuf?e. After the second shuffle, Dealer Chowdhury removed the affected decks (four extra cards) and placed it in the dealing shoe. The surveillance coverage indicated Dealer Chowdhury turned off the shuf?er. At 3:53 pm. Dealer Chowdhury addressed the red light on the shu?ler for table WT 1502 and removed the affected deck (short four cards) and placed it in the dealing shoe. From 3:53 pm. to 5:21 pm. there were 77 hands dealt by Dealers Chowdhury and Cao on the Minibaccarat game on table WT 1501 with the affected decks that had four extra cards and there were 78 hands dealt on the Minibaccarat game on table WT 1502 with the affected decks that were missing four cards. When the decks were returned to l6 their respective shuf?ers the red light on the shuf?er for table WT 1502 began ?ashing and was investigated by Table Games Pit Manger Weaver who discovered the errors with the two decks and corrected them. While SugarHouse personnel did not report receiving any complaints from patrons, it is unknown whether the patrons on the Minibaecarat games on tables WT 1501 and WT 1502 knew they were playing with improper decks. The BCC compliance review was not able to identify the patrons, nor determine their win/loss record during the time the integrity of the Minibaccarat games were affected because these are dealer assisted electronic table games with 24 different terminals. SugarHouse personnel failed to prOperly address a blinking light on a shuf?er and allowed hands of Minibaccarat to be dealt with defective decks resulting in the breach of the integrity of Minibaccarat games. This resulted in violations of the Gaming Act, the Board?s regulations and SugarHouse?s Internal Controls. SugarHouse took disciplinary action against one employee involved in this incident. Dealer azila Chowdhury received a Performance Improvement Notice?Written Warning Level 1. Count On January 3, 2018, the BCC referred Violations of the Gaming Act, the Board?s regulations and SugarHouse?s Internal Controls. On December 9, 2017, SugarHouse Poker Room Supervisor Michael Ricci (GID #84186) reported to the BCC that there was an issue with a shuf?er in the Poker Room at the Poker game on table PK 1212, resulting in several hands of Poker being dealt with two decks that were one card short. 17 A surveillance review found that on December 9, 2017, at 1:30 pm. the shuf?er at the Poker game on table PK 1212 ejected some of the orange decks of cards. Dealer Jerry Cana #84967) removed all but one of the cards (an eight of Clubs) from the shuf?er and placed them aside. Dealer Cana then completed the hand he had dealt before the shuf?er incident. The patron in spot 9 on the game noticed the one remaining card in the shuf?er and retrieved it. The patron handed it to Dealer Cana who added the card (an orange eight of Clubs) to the two purple decks he was dealing. Dealer Cane then placed the two purple decks he had been dealing, with the extra orange eight of Clubs, in the shu?ler and proceeded to deal a new hand with the two orange decks that were short an eight of Clubs. After dealing one hand of Poker with the short orange decks, Dealer Cana was tapped off the game by Dealer Christopher Davis (GID #53066) at 1:31 pm. Dealer Davis proceeded to deal six more hands with the orange decks that were short an eight of clubs. During the time that these seven hands of Poker were dealt with two decks that were short a card, from 1:31 pm. to 1:44 there were nine to ten patrons present on the Poker game on table PK 1212. Dealer Davis hand shuffled the orange decks during these hands while the purple decks remained in the shuf?er or out of play. The surveillance coverage showed that at 1:36 pm. Poker Room Supervisor Ricci arrived at the Poker game on table PK 1212 and began to examine the shuf?er machine. The purple decks with the extra eight of clubs from the orange decks were removed ?om the shuf?er and then returned to it. Issues with the shuf?er continued. At 1:39 pm. Dealer Davis removed the purple decks from the shuffler and checked the decks face-up, not detecting the extra eight of clubs from the orange decks. At 1:40 pm. Dealer Davis returned the purple decks to the shu?ler. At 1:44 pm. Poker Supervisor Dawn Oliver (GID 18 #84007) arrived at the Poker game on table PK 1212 and after a conversation with Supervisor Ricci closed the game and asked the patrons to move to another Poker table. At 1:45 pm. Dealer Cana returned to table PK 1212 and began to countdown the chip ?oat and close the table along with Supervisor Oliver. A?er both sets of decks were run through the shuf?er, Supervisor Oliver conducted a hand check of both sets of decks at 1:53 pm. and discovered the mix?up with the orange eight of Clubs. Both sets of decks were bagged and secured for destruction. While SugarHouse personnel reported to the BCC that they did not receive any complaints from patrons, it is unknown whether the patrons on the Poker game on table PK 1212 knew they were playing with decks that were short an eight of Clubs. SugarHouse personnel failed to properly address a malfunctioning shuffler resulting in the breach of the integrity of 21 Poker game. This resulted in violations of the Gaming Act, the Board?s regulations and SugarHouse?s Internal Controls. SugarHouse took disciplinary action against both dealers involved in this incident. Dealers Cana and Davis both received Performance Improvement Notices-Verbal Feedback. Count VI SHE-053832448 On March 26, 2018, the BCC referred violations of the Gaming Act, the Board?s regulations and SugarHouse?s Internal Controls. On January 22, 2018, SugarHouse Surveillance Of?cer Joseph Pizzillo (GID #47668) reported to the BCC that a shuffler malfunctioned in Pit Nine at the Blackjack game on table El 905. A surveillance review found that on January 22, 2018, at 12:00 am. the Blackjack game on table RI 905 was 19 being dealt by Dealer Katrina Hill (GID #99247). Dealer Hill ?nished a shoe at that time and retrieved the cards from the discard rack and placed them in the shu?ler. Surveillance coverage showed that Dealer Hill left one of the cards in the discard rack. The six decks placed in the shuf?er were short one card. Dealer Hill took the second set of decks from the shuf?er and placed them in the shoe and resumed dealing the game. She had dealt seven hands when at 12:07 am. the shuffler at the Blackjack game on table 905 began ?ashing red indicating there was a malfunction with the machine or with the cards contained therein. Dealer Hill requested Table Games Supervisor Khalil Bullock (GID #66294) respond to table El 905. Supervisor Bullock turned off the shuffler and then turned it back on resetting it. Supervisor Bullock did not stop the game nor did he remove the cards from the shuf?er to count them. Dealer Hill continued dealing from the six decks that were in the shoe. At 12:17 am. Dealer Hill ?nished the shoe and looked to the shuf?er to retrieve the shuf?ed decks when she noticed the red light was ?ashing again. Dealer Hill requested Table Games Supervisor Bullock respond to her table again. Supervisor Bullock turned off the shuf?er and then turned it back on resetting it a second time. At 12:18 am. Supervisor Bullock removed the decks (which were one card short) from the shuttler and placed them on the table. Dealer Hill took the cards in the discard rack and placed the decks (which were at the time one card over) in the shuttler- Supervisor Bullock instructed Dealer Hill to manually shuf?e the six decks from the shuffler. At 12:19 am. Dealer Hill ?nished shuttling and placed the six decks, which were at the time one card short, in the shoe and resumed dealing the Blackjack game. Dealer Hill dealt 17 hands from the shoe that was short one card. At 12:34 am. Dealer Hill ?nished the shoe. During this time, Supervisor Bullock attended to the shuf?er, attempting several times to have it 20 shuf?e the six decks that were one card over, without success. At 12:36 am. Supervisor Bullock removed the six decks from the shuf?er and counted them, discovering the extra card from the other set of decks. As a result of the missing card, the second set of six decks was in play for 14 minutes, from 12:20 am. to 12:34 arm, while one card short. The Blackjack game on table 8.1 905 was never shutdown while SugarHouse supervisory personnel were attempting to resolve a problem with the automatic shu?ler. This impacted the integrity of the Blackjack game on table 905 for 14 minutes. SugarHouse personnel did not advise the four patrons on the Blackjack game of the error on the 17 hands dealt with the short decks. The BCC reported that the four patrons could not be identi?ed because they were unrated or refused to provide their names. A surveillance review of the 17 hands dealt with the short decks indicated that all four patrons loss more than they won, for a collective loss of $840. SugarHouse personnel failed to properly address a warning light on a shuf?er resulting in the breach of the integrity of a Blackjack game. This resulted in violations of the Gaming Act, the Board?s regulations and SugarHouse?s Internal Controls. SugarHouse took disciplinary action against the employees involved in this incident. Table Games Supervisor Bullock was terminated and Dealer Hill received a Performance Improvement Notice-Verbal Feedback. Count VII SHE-053828648 On March 26, 2018, the BCC referred violations of the Gaming Act, the Board?s regulations and SugarHouse?s Internal Controls. On January 24, 2018, SugarHouse Surveillance Shift Manager William Shreckengost (GID #6286) reported to the BCC that 21 an internal control violation involving an extra card and an automatic shuf?er occurred in Pit Nine at the Blackjack game on table El 907. A surveillance review found that on January 24, 2018, at 2:35 pm. the Blackjack game on table 907 was being dealt by Dealer Paul Cao (GID #60446). Dealer Cao ?nished the shoe at that time and retrieved the cards from the discard rack and placed them in the shu?ler. Surveillance coverage showed that Dealer Cao left one of the cards in the shoe. The six decks placed in the shuf?er were short one card. Dealer Cao took the second set of six decks from the shuffler and placed them in the shoe behind the card that was left in the shoe and resumed dealing the game. When Dealer Cao went to ?burn? (remove) the ?rst card, two cards came out of the shoe. One of the cards was the card left behind in the shoe from the other set of decks that were now in the shuffler. Dealer Cao requested Table Games Supervisor Joel Leventon #53602) respond to table 907. Supervisor Leventon instructed Dealer Cao to conduct a hand shuf?e of the decks in the shoe which included the extra card from the other decks that were now in the shuf?er. Dealer Cao complied and at 2:37 pm. shuf?ed the six decks with one card over and returned them to the shoe. At 2:38 pm. Dealer Cao was relieved by Dealer Mark Grams (GID #51539) who burned one card and began dealing from the shoe. At 2:42 pm. surveillance coverage showed that the red light on the shuf?er began ?ashing. Supervisor Leventon attended the shu??ler at 2:43 pm. and ran the decks that were short one card through the shuffler a second time. At 2:50 pm. surveillance coverage showed that the red light on the shuf?er began ?ashing again and Supervisor Leventon returned and ran the shortened decks through the shuf?er a third time. At 2:54 pm. Dealer Grams ?nished dealing the shoe that had the extra card while the shuf?er was processing the shortened set of decks for a third time. Supervisor Leventon 22 instructed Dealer Grams to conduct a hand shuf?e of the decks with the extra card. Dealer Grams complied. He completed the shuf?e and returned them to the shoe at 2:56 pm. and resumed dealing from the decks with the extra card. At 2:57 pm. surveillance coverage showed that the red light on the shuf?er began ?ashing again and Supervisor Leventon returned and ran the shortened decks through the shuf?er for a fourth time. At 2:58 pm. Dealer Cao relieved Dealer Grams at the Blackjack game on table 907. At 3:05 pm. surveillance coverage showed that the red light on the shuffler began ?ashing again. At 3:08 p.111. Supervisor Leventon returned to the Blackjack game on table BJ 907 and removed the shortened decks from the shuf?er and placed them on the pit stand. At 3:09 pm. surveillance coverage showed Supervisor Leventon began counting down the shortened decks with assistance from Table Games Supervisors Tony Nguyen (GID #69305) and Natalia Alegria (GID #54071). At 3:12 pm. Dealer Cao ?nished the second shoe played with the extra card. At 3:13 pm. surveillance coverage showed that Supervisor Alegria retrieved the cards with the extra card from the discard rack on table 907 and located the extra card and returned it to the shortened decks. After both sets of decks were corrected they were returned to the Blackjack game on table BJ 907. As a result of a card being le? in the dealing shoe, two sets of the same six decks with an extra card were in play for 34 minutes, from 2:38 pm. to 3:12 pm. The Blackjack game on table BJ 907 was never shutdown while SugarHouse supervisory personnel were attempting to resolve a problem with the automatic shuf?er. This impacted the integrity of the Blackjack game on table B1 907 for 34 minutes. SugarHouse personnel did not advise the three patrons on the Blackjack game of the error on the 42 hands dealt with the six decks holding an extra card. The BCC reported that one of the three patrons could not 23 be identi?ed because he was unrated and refused to provide his name. The other two patrons were rated players and were identi?ed. The BCC reported that they were unable to determine an accurate win/loss record for the three patrons through a surveillance review of the 42 hands dealt with the extra card. SugarHouse personnel did not provide the three patrons with any kind of reimbursement. SugarHouse personnel failed to properly address a warning light on a shuf?er resulting in the breach of the integrity of a Blackjack game. This resulted in violations of the Gaming Act, the Board?s regulations and SugarHouse?s Internal Controls. SugarHouse took disciplinary action against the employees involved in this incident. Table Games Supervisor Leventon was terminated and Dealer Cao received a Performance Improvement Notice-Written Warning Level One. TERMS OF AGREEMENT In consideration of the foregoing stipulated facts, and in full and ?nal settlement of any and all claims, or causes of action which could or might be brought under the Act or the regulations promulgated thereunder, whether against SugarHouse and/or any of its owners, employees or agents, arising out of the matters identi?ed in the above stipulated facts, the Parties do hereby further stipulate and agree that: 1. This Consent Agreement shall become ?nal and effective only upon its approval by the Board; 2. SugarHouse shall pay a civil penalty in the amount of eighty??ve thousand dollars to the Board; 24 3. Within ?ve days of the Board?s Order approving this Consent Agreement, Sugarl?louse shall pay the Board two thousand ?ve hundred dollars for the costs incurred by OEC, the BCC and other related staff in connection with this matter; 4. SugarHouse shall reinforce its policies and provide additional training and guidance to its employees, which will minimize the chance for similar incidents to occur in the future; 5. If approved, the Board may make information public with respect to the terms and conditions of this Consent Agreement; 6. This Consent Agreement may be set aside by the Board if any term herein is violated by SugarHouse; 7. SugarHouse, through their authorized representative whose signature appears below, has read and fully understands the termsof this Consent Agreement; and 8. This Consent Agreement shall not preclude the Board or OBC ?'om reviewing and considering any facts in any future proceeding relating to any applications for licensure or quali?cations of the licensee. SugarHouse expressly acknowledges and agrees that the Board reserves the right to take any actions that the Board, in its sole discretion, believes is necessary to protect the integrity of gaming in including the right to suspend or revoke any license, approval or permit without limitation if any further violations occur or are subsequently discovered, all in accordance with the Act and the regulations promulgated thereunder. 25 {?aw 3?33: Wigwam; mment 331% than: 932% of the, above. GWECE 313?! WRCEWW 7/ 3.1/2 mma gm; mm 33%? Gamma, LE, 3. ?Jag/g 3.5, Jar/3? if .. . DATE :23: may for 893mm Camilla Summe {3131311233, 1? 25