ORDERS:
FINAL ORDER
STATEMENT OF
THE CASE
This
contested case was tried before me on September 3, 2008. Both the Respondent,
South Carolina Department of Revenue, and the Petitioner, Roy Mitchell Stevens,
Jr., were represented at the hearing. The parties have stipulated this Court
has jurisdiction over this matter and the case was well tried by both sides. By
agreement of counsel, Respondent presented evidence first, followed by the
Petitioner, in order to give Petitioner a clear picture of the assertions he
was to meet.
Prior
to the beginning of trial, the parties introduced various exhibits into
evidence. The exhibits were introduced without objection and have been
thoroughly reviewed by the Court.
The
Petitioner contests the denial of a bingo promoter’s license. For the reasons
set forth herein, I grant Petitioner’s Motion for Judgment made at the
conclusion of the evidence to the effect that the Petitioner is entitled to a
bingo promoter’s license with stipulations which the Petitioner agreed to in
open Court.
FINDINGS
OF FACT
Based
on the testimony and the materials presented to the Court, I the following
findings of fact.
The
Petitioner Roy Mitchell Stevens, Jr. (Mitch) is a businessman and, at present,
he operates the Snappy Car Wash in Columbia, S.C. and works many hours a week
in pursuit of his business enterprise. Mitch is the son of Roy Mitchell
Stevens, Sr. (Roy).
For
some while, Roy was engaged as a bingo promoter. Recently, Roy plead guilty to
a gambling offense in Federal Court and was sentenced to probation. Roy is precluded by virtue of the terms of his plea, as well as by the law of South Carolina (See S.C. Code Ann. § 12-21-4060) from managing or conducting a game
or assisting in any manner with the bingo operation. Mitch is not planning to
operate the bingo facility as a “straw man” for his father, Roy. Mitch plans
to operate the facility on his own, free from any direct or indirect
involvement by his father.
Roy is President of a business entity which owns a building in Goose Creek, South Carolina. The building is approximately 4,000 square feet and is situated on
approximately one acre of land. There is a charity which operates a bingo game
in the building.
About
the time Roy lost his bingo license, Mitch applied for a bingo promoter’s
license. The proposed location to be operated by Mitch as a bingo promoter is the
Goose Creek location mentioned above. Mitch proposes to lease the Goose Creek location from the owner and sublet it to the charity. When the application for
the license was filed by Mitch, the Department recognized the similarity in
names between Mitch and his father. The Department also recognized the
similarity of location and of potential employees. Thus, the Department
legitimately questioned whether Roy would be directly or indirectly involved in
managing or conducting a game, or assisting in any manner with the bingo operation
should Mitch be issued a license.
When
the Department became suspicious of the application, Mitch was asked to answer
various questions under oath and did so. The Department, however, was not
satisfied with all of the responses and was not totally satisfied with the
application. Thus, the Department denied the application of Mitch for a bingo promoter’s
license. Any irregularities in the application were either explained
satisfactorily at hearing or corrective action taken prior to hearing.
CONCLUSIONS
OF LAW AND ORDER
Based
on the testimony at the hearing, I find and conclude that the application for a
bingo promoter’s license by Mitch is bona fide.
Mitch
now meets all of the requirements of South Carolina law for the issuance of a bingo
promoter’s license. As Mitch meets all of the qualification for a bingo promoter’s
license, I find and conclude he is entitled to the issuance of such a license.
The license shall contain a stipulation that Roy shall have no direct or
indirect involvement in the operation of the bingo enterprise, and that Roy shall not be permitted to manage or conduct a game or assist in any manner with the
bingo operation. Mitch may lease real estate from the entity in which Roy is an officer so long as Roy does nothing to directly or indirectly manage, conduct,
or assist in any manner with the bingo operation at the location.
IT
IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the Motion for Judgment by
Roy Mitchell Stevens, Jr. be and hereby is granted. The Department shall
immediately issue Roy Mitchell Stevens, Jr. a bingo promoter’s license. The
license shall contain a stipulation that Roy Mitchell Stevens, Sr. shall have
nothing to do directly or indirectly with the operation of any Bingo business
operated or promoted by Roy Mitchell Stevens, Jr. and that Roy shall not be
permitted to manage or conduct a game or assist in any manner with the bingo
operation. Nothing contained in this Order shall prevent Roy Mitchell Stevens,
Jr. from renting property from the entity in which his father is an officer and
subletting the property to the charity for operation of a Bingo facility.
AND
IT IS SO ORDERED.
______________________________
John
D. McLeod, Judge
Administrative
Law Court
Columbia, South Carolina
September 5, 2008
|
