Pokies giant Mounties taken to civil court over anti-money laundering laws
The Australian Transaction Reports and Analysis Centre (AUSTRAC) alleges the Mount Pritchard District and Community Club group seriously and systemically violated the country's anti-money laundering and counter-terrorism financial laws.
Mounties, as it is commonly known, owns 10 venues — including eight that operate approximately 1,400 pokie machines, mostly across Greater Sydney and the Central Coast.
Amongst them is the club with the most lucrative pokies machines in NSW, also known as Mounties, in Sydney's south-west, according to quarterly data the club supplied to the state's regulator.
AUSTRAC alleges in a civil suit that Mounties failed to comply with rules designed to stop criminals from exploiting its gaming machines.
It is also alleged in the civil suit that the group failed to monitor customers presenting money laundering risks in "a number of specific instances".
"This is a big company with an even bigger responsibility to ensure its clubs are managing the risks that criminals can run dirty money through its gaming machines," AUSTRAC chief executive Brendan Thomas said.
"Customer due diligence and transaction monitoring in a club that processes hundreds of millions of dollars a year through its poker machines, a significant amount of which is cash, is going to require a robust approach when it comes to verifying a customer's source of funds."
Mounties outsources parts of its compliance program to a third party, Betsafe, which is also used by other clubs.
But Mr Thomas said: "It can't outsource its anti-money laundering and counter-terrorism financial obligations."
He invoked findings from the NSW Crime Commission's Project Islington, an inquiry that found billions of dollars were laundered through the state's pokies machines at clubs and hotels in the financial year ending in 2021.
The NSW government introduced a cashless gaming trial in response, though it had few active participants, and it wasn't rolled out more widely.
Mounties have been contacted for comment.
The matter is set to be heard by the Federal Court.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Canberra Times
2 days ago
- Canberra Times
History, culture celebrated at 25th Garma festival
The most recent example of this fight was in March, when the High Court upheld a Federal Court decision that found the Gumatj clan's Country in northeast Arnhem Land was not acquired "on just terms" before being leased to the Swiss-Australian mining consortium Nabalco in 1968.
News.com.au
2 days ago
- News.com.au
Elon Musk's X Corp loses Aussie legal fight against eSafety Commissioner
Elon Musk's X Corp, previously known as Twitter, has lost a second legal bid to overturn a penalty imposed by Australia's online watchdog two years ago. The US-based social media giant was handed a transparency notice by eSafety Commissioner Julie Inman Grant seeking information about the measures the company was taking to address the proliferation of child sexual exploitation material on its platform. The reporting notice required Twitter Inc to prepare a report on its compliance with basic online safety expectations between January 2022 and January 2023, with a response required by March 29, 2023. X Corp did respond, however the commission argued the reply was inadequate and incomplete, later imposing a $610,500 penalty in September that year. The company challenged the penalty in the Federal Court of Australia arguing the compliance notice was issued to Twitter a month before that company ceased to exist, when Musk acquired the platform for $44 billion, and therefore was not obliged to respond. The argument was struck down in October last year by Justice Michael Wheelahan who found the company failed to show that it was not required to respond. However the case returned before a full bench of the Federal Court in March as the company appealed against Justice Wheelahan's judgment. X Corp's barrister Bret Walker SC argued the Judge made a mistake in ruling the obligation to respond adequately to the notice continued after the merger of Twitter Inc and X Corp. He argued Justice Wheelahan had erred by not finding that at the time of the merger Twitter Inc 'ceased to exist' and the eSafety Commissioner would have been required to issue a new notice. The case returned to court on Thursday as Justice Bernard Murphy delivered a judgment against the social media company. Justice Murphy dismissed the appeal and ordered X Corp to pay the eSafety Commissioner's costs. The full judgment is expected to be published online. After Justice Wheelahan's initial ruling last year, Commissioner Julie Inman Grant welcomed the Court's decision. 'Early last year, we asked some of the world's biggest technology companies, including Twitter, to report on steps they were taking to comply with the Australian Government's Basic Online Safety Expectations in relation to child sexual exploitation and abuse material on their platforms,' she said. 'Had X Corp's argument been accepted by the Court it could have set the concerning precedent that a foreign company's merger with another foreign company might enable it to avoid regulatory obligations in Australia.'
ABC News
2 days ago
- ABC News
High Court rejects X appeal against notice to explain sharing of child abuse material
The High Court has rejected an appeal made by X Corp against a notice the tech company was given by the office of eSafety Commissioner Julie Inman Grant demanding an explanation about child abuse material shared on the social media platform X, formerly Twitter. Three federal judges on Thursday unanimously rejected X's appeal against a federal court decision made in October last year that the company was obliged to respond to the notice, which demanded details on how the Elon Musk-owned company was combating widespread child exploitation material. The tech company was also ordered to pay the commissioner's legal costs. Ms Inman Grant's office describes itself as the world's first government agency dedicated to keeping people safe online. The commissioner has also driven world-first legislation that will ban Australian children younger than 16 from social media platforms, including X, from December. The federal court case dates back to early 2023, when Ms Inman Grant asked some of the world's largest technology companies to report on what they were doing about child abuse material appearing on their platforms. A reporting notice, issued under Australia's Online Safety Act, was sent to Twitter in February that year. Twitter then merged with X the following month. Arguments presented to the court by X Corp against complying with the order included that Twitter no longer existed as a legal entity and that X did not carry its predecessor's regulatory obligations in Australia. Ms Inman Grant, a former Twitter employee, welcomed the ruling on Thursday. "This judgement confirms the obligations to comply with Australian regulations still apply, regardless of a foreign company's merger with another foreign company," she said in a statement. She said her agency would continue enforcing the Online Safety Act and "holding all tech companies to account without fear or favour, ensuring they comply with the laws of Australia." A lawyer representing X, Justin Quill, said he had not yet read the appeals court judges' reasons and could not comment on the possibility of a High Court appeal. The High Court only hears around 10 per cent of appeal applications, so the federal court full-bench decision could be final in X's case. X's media office did not immediately respond to an email request for comment on Thursday. In 2023, Ms Inman Grant's office fined X $610,500 for failing to fully explain how it tackled child exploitation content. X's response was considered incomplete or misleading. X refused to pay, and the penalty is the subject of a separate and ongoing federal court case. AP
