ORDERS:
FINAL CONSENT ORDER
This matter is before the Administrative Law Judge Division pursuant to an agency transmittal
by the South Carolina Department of Revenue (Department) dated October 2, 2003. In its final
determination issued on September 12, 2003, the Department found that there were two regulatory
violations in connection with the bingo operation for which Respondent is the licensed promoter.
Respondent has disputed the Department’s findings in part. However, in order to settle this dispute,
the parties have agreed to the following terms, which resolve the matter and which are incorporated
into this Final Consent Order:
1.Respondent admits that the prize for each game was not announced at the conclusion of the game, in violation of S.C. Code Ann. § 12-21-3990(A)(2). For this violation, Respondent agrees to pay a fine of $500.
2.Respondent admits that players were not given paper bingo cards for games they played with an electronic daubing device, in violation of S.C. Code Ann. § 12-21-4220. Respondent does not admit that this omission resulted in the evasion of bingo tax. In order to settle the dispute without further legal action, Respondent agrees to pay a fine of $5,000. Further, Respondent agrees to abstain from offering electronic daubing devices for the play of bingo at Clemson Bingo from the date of this Order until February 9, 2006, three years from the date of the violations.
3.The Department agrees to accept the above-stated fines, which total $5500, with the stipulation that Respondent will not offer electronic daubing devices before February 9, 2006, in full satisfaction of the above-stated regulatory violations. The parties agree that this settlement does not affect or resolve any regulatory violations against Respondent’s promoter’s license, except the above-stated violations occurring on February 9, 2003.
The parties freely and voluntarily entered into this agreement. Further the parties agree, and
I so find, that this constitutes a full, fair, and just resolution of this matter.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that this matter is DISMISSED with prejudice.
AND IT IS SO ORDERED.
______________________________
JOHN D. GEATHERS
Administrative Law Judge
March 24, 2004
Columbia, South Carolina |
