ORDERS:
SETTLEMENT ORDER
This matter comes before me on the citation issued by the South Carolina Department of Revenue
and Taxation against the respondents for violation of the Video Game Machines Act [S.C. Code
Ann. § 12-21-2770 - 3070 (Supp. 1994)]. Respondents were cited for having more than eight
machines licensed under S. C. Code Ann. § 12-21-2720(A)(3) (Supp. 1994) at a single place or
premises. A hearing was scheduled for August 10, 1995. Prior to the hearing, the parties reached
an agreement resolving the matter, and that agreement is incorporated into this Order.
The agreement between the parties is as follows:
1. Respondents agree to pay a fine of $17,000 for the single place or premises violation to
Petitioner by November 6, 1995.
2. Respondents now state that they are in compliance with the regulations defining a single place
or premises, and will remain in compliance with those regulations.
3. In consideration of the above, and pursuant to S. C. Code Ann. § 12-4-320(3) (Supp. 1994)
Petitioner agrees not to seek the revocation of the licenses of the machines located in the subject
structure for the particular violations cited in this action.
4. This settlement is deemed and found to be a compromise of a settled and disputed claim, and is
not deemed or found to be a violation of the Video Game Machines Act.
5. Nothing in this settlement Order shall be construed to allow the continued operation of
machines in a county that voted against the continued operation of such machines in the recent
public referendum.
I find the above settlement to be fair and equitable, approve such settlement, and hereby Order its
adoption.
WE SO CONSENT:
By: _________________________________
Nicholas P. Sipe, Chief Counsel for
Regulatory Litigation
Attorney for Petitioner
By: _______________________________
David Belding, Esq.
Attorney for Respondents
IT IS SO ORDERED.
____________________________________
STEPHEN P. BATES
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE
August 16, 1995
Columbia, South Carolina |
