SkyCity Adelaide historically put profit over compliance, investigation finds
In an anti-money laundering analyst's view, the primary concern was generating income.
This attitude was demonstrated when management lamented losing a high-value customer to barring, stating 'not a good result to have this barring in place for two years ... [the customer] is sitting on roughly A$900,000 loss year to date.'
Jarden's Auckland-based analysts Adrian Allbon and Mark Seddon noted this in a desk note on the review, released yesterday.
'For SkyCity, suitability has been confirmed: Adelaide to continue holding its casino licence and SkyCity as an ongoing owner of Adelaide casino. This was an expected outcome for us following the SKC management changes and the material cost commitment over the next three years to lift its operating standards,' the analysts wrote.
Martin's report highlighted significant failings of the casino management.
Yet both his and the investigations undertaken by the financial regulator, the Australian Transaction Reports and Analysis Centre (Austrac), also noted SkyCity Adelaide's substantial commitment to addressing those failings.
'If I had been asked to determine the suitability of the licensee and SkyCity Entertainment Group at the end of October 2021, the inevitable answer would have been that neither were suitable,' Martin wrote.
Adelaide gained National Park City status in 2021. Photo / Joe Nes
'Since then, the situation has changed.'
Later in his report, he wrote: 'The significance of past failures needs to be considered in the context of the licensee's subsequent behaviour, changes in personnel and the licensee's current corporate culture and governance.
'I am satisfied that, today, the licensee is a suitable person to hold the licence and operate the casino.'
Martin's review began in mid-2022, building on extensive investigations then being progressed by Consumer and Business Services.
The review was put on hold between February 2023 and June 2024, while Austrac took civil action against SkyCity Adelaide in the Federal Court of Australia for breaching Australia's national Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Act 2006.
The report detailed systematic anti-money laundering failures through case studies.
Martin found material corporate governance failures spanning more than two decades.
SkyCity chairman Julian Cook apologised. Photo / Cameron Pitney
From 1999 until November 2021, 'the board of the licensee, SkyCity Adelaide, the holder of the licence to operate the casino, did not meet' and 'no reports were provided to the board of the licensee relating to SkyCity Adelaide's compliance obligations or functions'.
Last May, the Herald reported SkyCity had agreed to pay a penalty of A$67 million for anti-money laundering breaches in Adelaide.
SkyCity Adelaide had reached an agreement with Austrac to settle civil penalty proceedings relating to the breaches from December 2016 to mid-December 2022.
Under the agreement, SkyCity Adelaide and Austrac filed a statement of agreed facts and admissions, as well as joint submissions, with the Federal Court.
SkyCity's executive chairman, Julian Cook, acknowledged the casino operator's failure to meet the required standards and apologised for it.
Yesterday, SkyCity chief executive Jason Walbridge said in a statement to the NZX that it accepted the findings of the report.
'We fully accept and acknowledge the findings of the report that we did not measure up to the standards required, and we apologise for those failings.
'We further acknowledge Mr Martin's findings and the commissioner's comments that we still have work to do.'
Walbridge said it remained committed to constructive engagement with all its regulators.
'We have made significant enhancements in terms of leadership, resourcing and systems, including a commitment to invest ~$60m over three years to transform our culture, to uplift our financial crime and host responsibility practices.
'Our team has worked hard to raise our standards, better meet our obligations and improve how we look after our customers.'
SkyCity's shares were trading flat this morning at 99c but are down nearly 35% over the past year.
Anne Gibson has been the Herald's property editor for 25 years, written books and covered property extensively here and overseas.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
RNZ News
an hour ago
- RNZ News
The Panel with Jennie Moreton and Sue Kedgley Part 2
Photo: 123RF In part two, the South Wairarapa District Council is consulting on a proposed bylaw to close the unofficial paper road to Cape Palliser which crosses private land: locals are outraged, we find out why. Finally, indie promoters in Auckland have been told to stop putting up gig posters.
NZ Herald
2 hours ago
- NZ Herald
Trial of New Zealand soldier accused of espionage remains shrouded in secrecy
By Jimmy Ellingham of RNZ A soldier with links to far-right groups and who is accused of spying will face a court martial hearing next week – a first-of-its-kind prosecution shrouded in secrecy for now. The Linton-based soldier's name is suppressed and so is the foreign
Otago Daily Times
2 hours ago
- Otago Daily Times
Espionage trial of NZ soldier shrouded in secrecy
By Jimmy Ellingham of RNZ A soldier with links to far-right groups and who is accused of spying will face a court martial hearing next week - a first-of-its-kind prosecution shrouded in secrecy for now. The Linton-based soldier's name is suppressed and so is the foreign country at the centre of the espionage case, as well as the names of some prosecution expert witnesses. RNZ is opposing these orders and a suppression hearing is scheduled for Monday morning, before the court martial begins. In late 2020, 17 charges under the Armed Forces Discipline Act were laid against the soldier, including espionage and possessing objectionable material. Since then, the case has wended its way through pre-trial hearings. RNZ has previously reported the soldier, aged 27 at the time of his arrest, was a member of far-right groups the Dominion Movement and Action Zealandia. First of its kind A similar case 50 years ago saw Bill Sutch tried and acquitted in the civilian court of espionage, for passing information to the Russians. Next week's court martial is the first military case. "I think 'unusual' is not the right term," said retired Auckland University law professor Bill Hodge about the prosecution. "I think 'unique' might be the correct term." Hodge said the suppression orders appeared extensive. "I've always been surprised that there could be information held by the armed forces, which absolutely had to be kept top secret. "There maybe information about the citizens of a foreign jurisdiction and what they're doing here, but still, that would be of public interest." Hodge said military courts were historically ahead of civilian ones on matters of justice and fairness, although they might hold concerns about making information public. "Remember, the background of a military court would concern hostilities and [be] in the face of the enemy. In that sort of situation, that sort of context, they would be greatly concerned with information that would aid the enemy. "I don't see an enemy at this moment, so I'm still mystified at what secrecy they'll be pursuing." Military panel to hear the case One difference between courts martial and civilian courts is that, instead of a jury, a panel of senior military officers hears the evidence, and decides on a defendant's guilt or innocence, and - if applicable - their sentence. In his previous career in the military, Hodge sat on these panels. "A military court is concerned with fairness, right to counsel, the insanity defence, for example, the discovery of information," he said. "One thing I could say firmly is the individual will have a fair trial, because in my experience, it's a fair system." David Pawson is an experienced court martial counsel and, in 30 years - firstly with the military police, then as a lawyer - he has never seen a similar case. "When I was a military police special investigator - that was at the end of the Cold War period - and even during that period, I was not aware of any investigation of that sort of nature. I have to say that was a new one to me." The system was robust and transparent, he said. "The court martial, in my experience, has always been very careful not to be seen as a secretive court and generally does apply those principles the same way that they do in the civil court." This meant the starting point for suppression decisions was open justice. Another experienced court martial lawyer, Michael Bott, said talking to a military panel was somewhat different to addressing a jury. "There are military values you have to take into account and also, with a court martial, it's governed by the Armed Forces Discipline Act, as opposed to the Criminal Procedure Act, but the Bill of Rights still applies. "When you're doing an opening and a closing, the processes and techniques are pretty much transferable." He said suppression arguments at courts martial sometimes included matters not applicable to civilian courts, such as national security. Hodge said he didn't think the court martial would reflect badly on New Zealand's reputation. "I think there's the opposite argument that the allies could say, 'New Zealand is alert, New Zealand is sufficiently concerned about this matter and they're looking after whatever information this might be'. "While you could say, 'Is New Zealand a leaky sieve?', no, New Zealand is behaving properly and attending to the disciplinary side of a possible breach." If the soldier is found guilty next week, he won't face the death penalty. This was removed from military law in 1989, but sentences for courts martial range from losing rank to a lengthy term in military prison.
