ORDERS:
CONSENT ORDER
T his matter comes before me on the citation issued by the South Carolina Department of Revenue
against the respondent for violations of S.C. Code Ann §§ 12-212720(C) and 12-21-2804 (Supp. 1996). On
March 29, 1996, Respondent was maintaining for use four stations on a video game machine without having
displayed licenses on those stations as required by Section 12-21-2720(C) as amended June 29, 1995.
Respondent had purchased the one license displayed on the machine prior to the effective date of the
amendment requiring each station to have its own license. In addition, the Department had cited Respondent
for having snore than five machines at a shingle place or premises. Prior to a 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 agrees to pay to the Petitioner a. fine of ten thousand ($10,000.00) dollars
within, thirty days after the South Carolina Supreme Court either denies certiorari or affirms the case
of S.C. Department of Revenue vs. Rosemary Coin, Inc. Opinion No. 2840, S.C. Ct. App. filed May
4, 1998. If the Rosemary Coin, case is reversed by the South Carolina Supreme Court no penalty will
be paid, and all charges will be dismissed.
2. The Petitioner agrees to dismiss the single place or premises violation regardless of
the outcome of the Rosemary Coin case.
3. The parries agree that this is a settlement agreement, and is not an admission of
liability by either party.
I find the above settlement to be flair and equitable, approve such settlement, and
hereby Order its adoption
WE SO CONSENT:
By:
Nicholas P. Sipe, Chief Counsel for
Regulatory Litigation
Attorney tor Petitioner
By:
Zoe Sanders Nettles, Esq.
Nelson, Mullins, Riley, & Scarborough, LLP
Attorney for Respondent
IT IS SO ORDERED.
JOHN D. GEATHERS
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE
December 2, 1998
Columbia, South Carolina |
