A Perth resident had lost over AU$50,000 from her and her boyfriend’s personal and business accounts in one year only.
The Sydney Morning Herald reported that the woman’s boyfriend found out about her addiction after having a relationship with her for four years. However, it is not her who he blames, but Crown Casino, the operator which literally did nothing to prevent the massive amount of money from being spent.
The woman, then aged 30, made a confession to her partner that she suffered from a serious gambling addiction in 2016 and filled in a self-exclusion form at the Burswood-located Crown Casino. He revealed that she was not able to control her problem gambling habits, as she was addicted to pokies, and eventually decided to enter the self-exclusion program offered by the Crown Casino.
Under the self-exclusion which included signing a contract and providing a photo, she was promised that she would not be permitted to enter the gambling venue. As the casino staff has explained at the time of the self-exclusion, the picture was required for the employees to be able to spot the customer in case that she tried to enter the venue and not allow her to come inside.
The form signed by the woman was dated January 2nd, 2017. The conditions of the self-exclusion, along with the prevention measures which are to be taken in order to not allow her to gamble at the casino. However, the self-exclusion form states that it was only the player was responsible to stop herself from entering the venue, and no such duty, obligation or responsibility was placed on Crown Perth and anyone else but her. The document also stated that the player could be lawfully removed from the casino in case she was found on the premises.
Crown Casino Perth’s Staff Did Nothing
Now, the woman, residing in Perth with her boyfriend, claims that she would simply go and enter the casino unrestrained for the next 11 months, without anyone – neither the security nor the rest of the casino employees – even making a slight attempt to prevent this from happening.
Her boyfriend, on the other hand, said that he knew about her self-exclusion from the casino but he had not been aware of the extent of her gambling addiction until December 2017. At the time, she made a confession to him, revealing she had lost AU$10,000 that were meant to help the family through the holiday period.
After the confession, the two of them went to the casino together, to talk with the casino staff and ask the employees to be more careful when preventing problem gamblers like her from entering the venue. The woman’s partner then spoke with senior Crown Casino staff who explained the clauses of the self-exclusion to him, which were actually aimed at securing the casino against any legal responsibility in case that player who chooses to lock themselves out from the gambling services enters the gambling venue.
The woman, however, managed to enter the casino and play the machines again. This time, she was approached by security staff who provided her with a written statement that she had breached the self-exclusion contract and would from then on be on a special watch list. The statement also said that she would be fined in case that she once again entered the casino. The notice was made on December 24th, 2017 and the woman was since then suspended from entering any part of the Crown Perth property.
The case has once again raised questions about the efficiency of the self-exclusion contracts signed by gambling addicts in the country. According to the woman’s partner, self-exclusion has turned out to be a waste of time, really, as casino staff did nothing to prevent the gambler from entering the venue.
The WA Department of Racing, Gaming and Liquor explained that self-exclusion is currently regulated by individual casinos, without any particular piece of legislation on the matter or an authority to take care of that. A spokesperson of the Department explained that section 26 of the Casino Control Act 1984 is set to deal with suspending players from entering casinos, but this obligation does not cover the cases of self-exclusion.