ORDERS:
FINAL DECISION
STATEMENT OF CASE
This matter comes before me upon request for a Hearing by the Respondents after being cited
for violating S.C. Code Ann. § 12-21-2804(A)(Supp. 1996). The South Carolina Department of
Revenue ("Department") contends that the Respondents operated more than five (5) video poker
machines in a "single place or premises." A Hearing was held before the Administrative Law Judge
Division on June 30, 1997.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Having observed the witnesses and exhibits presented at the hearing and closely passed upon
their credibility, taking into consideration the burden of persuasion by the Parties, I make the
following Findings of Fact by a preponderance of evidence:
1. Legal notice of the time, date, place and subject matter of the Hearing was given to the
Petitioner and the Respondents.
2. The Department's agents conducted an inspection at the "Coastal Mart" located at 1609
Leesburg Road, Columbia, South Carolina on June 14, 1996. The game rooms located in Coastal
Mart were operated by Dinish Bavishi. After the inspection, the Department's agents issued a
violation report against Mr. Bavishi charging him with operating in violation of S.C. Code Regs. §
117-190 (Supp. 1996) by not having "at least one separate employee on the premises during business
hours."
3. The Respondents' location was a convenience store with two rooms located in the back of
the store. Those two rooms, Coastal Mart Rooms 1 and 2, are operated as video game businesses.
At the time of the inspection, both of the game rooms were open and the machines in these rooms
were on and operational. Each game room contained five (5) Class III video game machines.
4. The only employee on the premises of Coastal Mart was one cashier located at the cash
register in the convenience store of the location. There were no employees located on the premises
of Room 1 or 2.
5. The above game rooms had a retail sales tax license issued to Nasib, Inc. The Class III
machine licenses were all purchased by Great Games, Inc. The following Class III video game
machine licenses were located in the respective game rooms:
Room 1: Room 2:
44616 44599
44618 44604
44619 44624
44628 44671
44637 44703
6. The Respondent did not have separate electric utility meters for the game rooms as required
by Regulation 117-190.
7. I find the Respondent Dinish Bavishi, d/b/a Coastal Mart Room 1 and 2, was in violation of
the Video Game Machines Act for failing to have at least one separate employee on each of the game
room premises during business hours and for failing to have separate utility meters.
8. The Department seeks the imposition of a Five Thousand ($5,000.00) Dollar fine against
each of the Respondents, revocation of the machine permits and the restriction that no permit be
issued for the Respondents' location for six months. The Respondents Danish Bavishi, Bert Patel,
Sam Patel, and Janak Naik did not appear at the hearing to present any defense. I find that the
appropriate penalty in this case is a Two Thousand Five Hundred ($2,500.00) Dollar fine for each
violation against Dinish Bavishi and revocation of the machine licenses in game rooms 1 and 2.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Based upon the Findings of Fact, I conclude as a matter of law, the following:
1. The Administrative Law Judge Division has jurisdiction to hear this matter pursuant to S.C.
Code Ann. § 12-4-30(D) (Supp. 1996) and S.C. Code Ann. § 1-23-320 (Supp. 1996).
2. The Department contends that the Respondents violated S.C. Code Ann. § 12-21-2804(A)(Supp. 1996). That section provides:
After July 1, 1994, the commission [Department] may not issue nor authorize to be
maintained any licenses or permits for more than five machines authorized under
Section 12-21-2720(A)(3) at a single place or premises.
3. Machines licensed under Section 12-21-2720(A)(3) include video games with a free play
feature operated by a slot in which a coin or thing of value is deposited. S.C. Code Ann. § 12-21-2720 (Supp. 1996).
4. S.C. Code Ann. § 12-21-2804(A) (Supp. 1996) states that the penalty for failing to comply
with the maximum number of machines in a "single place or premises" is the revocation of the
licenses of machines located in the establishment.
5. S.C. Code Ann. § 12-21-2804(F) (Supp. 1996) states that a person who violates Section 12-21-2804(A) may be fined up to Five Thousand ($5,000.00) Dollars.
6. The Video Game Machines Act ("Act") does not define the term "single place or premises."
7. The Department contends that the Respondents violated S.C. Code Ann. § 12-21-2804(A)(Supp. 1996). Section 2804(A) prohibits the operation of more than five video game
machines authorized under S.C. Code Ann. § 12-21-2720(A)(3) at a "single place or premises."
However, the Video Game Machines Act does not define the term "single place or premises." On
June 23, 1995, 27 S.C. Code Regs. 117-190 (Supp. 1996) became effective. It defines "single place
or premises" for purposes of interpreting the Video Game Machines Act, including Section 12-21-2804(A). It provides:
A "single place" or "premises" means a structure surrounded by exterior walls or
firewalls consistent with the requirements of the applicable building code (or where
no building code is applicable, a one hour rated firewall), provided such exterior
walls and fire walls may not have any windows, doors or other openings leading to
another area where video game machines are located.
If a structure surrounded by exterior walls has two or more areas where video game
machines are located, each surrounded by exterior walls or fire walls as defined and
required above, the Department must review all the facts and circumstances to
determine if each area in reality constitutes a single place or premise for video game
machines. In determining whether each entity is in fact a single place or premises,
the Department of Revenue will consider the following factors: (1) Does each entity
or business have a separate electric utility meter? (2) Does each entity or business
have at least one separate employee on the premises during business hours? (3) Does
each entity or business have a separate local business license where required? (4)
Does each entity or business have separate sales tax licenses? A positive answer to
these four questions is required for each area to be considered a "single place or
premise" for purposes of the Video Game Machines Act.
8. The Department contends that the Respondents violated Regulation 117-190 by failing to
maintain an employee in each business. Regulation 117-190 requires that each business must have
a separate employee on the premises while the business is open. The cardinal rule of statutory
interpretation is to ascertain and effectuate the legislative intent wherever possible. Bankers Trust
of South Carolina v. Bruce, 275 S.C. 35, 267 S.E.2d 424 (1980). "Full effect must be given to each
section of a statute, giving words their plain meaning, and, in the absence of ambiguity, words must
not be added or taken away." Hartford Accident and Indem. Co. v. Lindsay, 273 S.C. 79, 254 S.E.2d
301, 304 (S.C. 1979). Thus, the phrase "on the premise" presumptively must have meaning.
Therefore, the employees of a video poker business must be sufficiently connected to an open video
game room as to indicate that each game room that is open for business has a specific employee
assigned to work solely in that room.
9. Under Section 12-21-2804(A), a license on a video game machine must be revoked by virtue
of its misuse under the Act, regardless if the actual violator is the licensee, machine owner, or lessee.
However, a monetary fine under Section 12-21-2804(F) may only be imposed on the actual person
directly involved in the violation of Section 12-21-2804(A). In this case, the Department presented
sufficient evidence only to establish that the operator of the location was directly involved in
violating the Act. The Department did not present sufficient evidence to warrant the imposition of
a fine against Respondent Great Games, Inc.
ORDER
Based upon the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby:
ORDERED that the licenses listed in Findings of Fact paragraph 5 are revoked, and a fine
of Two Thousand Five Hundred ($2,500.00) Dollars is imposed Dinish Bavishi for each violation,
resulting in a total fine of Five Thousand ($5,000) Dollars.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that no permits shall be issued for any Class III machine to
be operated in any of the above game rooms for a period of six (6) months from the date of this
Final Decision.
___________________________
Ralph King Anderson, III
Administrative Law Judge
Columbia, South Carolina
August 13, 1997 |