ORDERS:
ORDER OF SETTLEMENT AND DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE
These matters come before me on the citations issued by the Department of Revenue and
Taxation against respondents for violation of the South Carolina Video Game Machines Act,
S.C. Code Ann. § 12-21-2770, et seq. Respondents are cited for having more than eight
machines licensed under the
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 offering inducements, and
for advertising for the playing of machines. A hearing was scheduled for September 13, 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. The Respondent has removed the term "casino" the front window of its business. Respondent
further agrees to cease and desist from using the term "casino" in the window of its business.
Respondent has ceased redeeming its business cards for cash, and further agrees to cease and
desist from that practice.
2. The Respondent agrees to pay a find of $500.00 for the advertising violation to the Petitioner
by October 13, 1995.
3. Respondents agree to pay a fine of $500 for the inducement violation to Petitioner by October
13, 1995.
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. 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 Respondent
IT IS SO ORDERED.
____________________________________
STEPHEN P. BATES
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE
September 13, 1995
Columbia, South Carolina |
