Gaming Commission won't halt investigation into Wynn casino just because Steve Wynn resigned as CEO

The Massachusetts Gaming Commission and State Police will continue an investigation into Wynn Resorts' "suitability" to run a casino in Everett - and will look at whether Steve Wynn is really giving up control over how the company operates.

At a meeting of commissioners today, commission Executive Director Edward Bedrosian said Steve Wynn's announcement yesterday that he is stepping down as CEO will not slow the probe into issues surrounding allegations in general that Wynn sexually attacked women for decades - and surrounding Wynn's personal payment of $7.5 million to a manicurist that was not revealed to the state as it looked at his casino application in 2013 - because of the potential impact on the company the state chose to run the $2.4-billion casino now under construction.

Bedrosian said investigators will look at any role Wynn might still have at his eponymous company, including any possible "continued stock ownership" and any role in ownership decisions, especially ones that might affect the brand and the company's impact. The investigation could ultimately lead to a commission vote on whether Wynn Resorts remains "suitable" to own and run a casino in Massachusetts.

"I'm telling you our investigation aggressively continues," Bedrosian said.

Bedrosian did not set any sort of time limit on the investigation, saying that the investigation has to be as thorough and as fair as possible.


Good - the investigation

By on

Good - the investigation should focus on how the Commission was hoodwinked and who committed that fraud (not disclosing the $7.5M payout or the sexual assault allegations on the license application). Considering the commission has been hoodwinked at nearly every step of the way on other issues related to the license, it'll be interesting to see if they uncover anything at all. If I'm not mistaken, didn't Crosby himself call up Wynn and urge him to apply for the license after his partnership with Kraft down in Foxboro fell through?



By on

Wynn required to disclose a personal settlement he made? If he were sued personally (and settled out of court) for say, someone slipping on ice at his home in Aspen, would he have to disclose that?

He set up a shell company to hide the payment

By on

Once you start setting up corporations to hide the money transfer, it's hard to call it a personal matter anymore. Especially if assets were transferred from the main Wynn Corp to the fake corp, directly or indirectly.

What if

By on

assets were transferred from him personally to the LLC and not from Wynn corp? Then why does it matter if he did it through and LLC or from his own bank account?

The Casino Law

By on

Because part of the casino law is that not only does the corporation holding the casino license have to be in good standing but all of the corporate level AND some of the pertinent manager level employees have to have employee licenses that identify that they have been vetted for good standing as well.

In other words, just because Wynn Resorts isn't a front for the mob doesn't mean that the CEO isn't using the casino to run his mob our law says BOTH have to be licensed to run a casino in our state. AND the law states that he doesn't have to be brought up on charges to lose his employee license...only that a pattern of bad behavior is able to be established. If he setup a shell company to pay out this payment...did it pay out others...or did he setup other shells...and how much did Wynn Resorts know about any of this because even if he's gone, they might have been fully complicit AND they were the ones that had to guarantee to us that he was clean, not him directly, so again even though he's gone, they're on the hook for not disclosing before when they validated him as being within the law so they're going to have to hang him out to dry and claim everything he did was completely unbeknownst to them too.


By on

For the informative response.

I'd love to see the wording of the question asked where they'd disclose this. Has your company and/or CEO made a payment to anyone to avoid a lawsuit?

Here is the Employee Reporting Obligation form

By on

Wynn's actions likely fall under:

* Any reports, complaints or allegations of which the individual is or should be aware involving conduct that could lead to criminal charges.

They have 10 days to report once they discover something that violates the rules.

The rules they had to accept when applying are here for the business:

And here for the individual:

There may be times when they lied during their second stage (RFA-2) proceedings documented in here:

Basically, the website is a wealth of information about the whole thing and is probably one of our more open government state sites.

The state is probably

By on

The state is probably relieved, Mass State lottery can continue to profit on degenerate gamblers, I was recently at a local convenience store and I over heard a conversation between a lottery agent and convenience store owner, the convenience store owner asked the lottery agent what is taking so long for the new lottery betting machines, lottery agent replied there are so many they need to deliver and we don’t have enough trucks to deliver them, wait... not enough trucks. The state lottery commission made over $1billion in sales last year alone and they don’t have enough trucks..

Another bag full of money and...

By on

The "commission" won't see anything wrong. Just like when mobster felon Charles Lightbody was profiting from the land sale, the commission somehow didn't notice even though it was well reported by the Globe and Washington Times. Lightbody was also literally fighting against the casino at Suffolk Downs. The gaming commission is at best incompetent, but most likely blatantly corrupt. The site never made sense. The casino will generate so much traffic that the already overloaded Sully Sq exit will back up 93 traffic well into the tunnel.



By on

When will all this traffic occur? I have never seen traffic backed up going into Foxwoods, and it's off of a 2 lane road. Is there a specific time people flood to a casino (for something other than say a concert or boxing match)?

You haven't seen traffic at Foxwoods


1) It's been open for 25 years and
2) It has a competitor 10 miles away

I've been saying this for about a decade now: This traffic will be horrible for months, because of pent-up artificially created demand among greater Bostonians to visit a local casino.

This is usually where I scapegoat government, but they appear to have at least listened to their constituents on this over the years, owing to the referendum ballot items on individual casino locations in East Boston, Revere, and in other communities. So, nope, your neighbors are morons who haven't the faintest concepts of demand and/or incentives.

Traffic was horrific at Foxwoods

By on

In 1996, the average daily traffic count on Route 2 near the casino was 27,200, compared with 4,500 at the same location in 1980, according to a study by the Southeastern Connecticut Council of Governments.
Foxwoods has since built a 4-laned Foxwoods bypass expressway adjacent to a 4-laned Foxwoods service road. Also, the NYC traffic to Foxwoods took a separate road so it wan't just one road in. There was absolutely no traffic on those country roads prior to the casino. The traffic to Foxwoods was naturally staggered since patrons going after work from Boston or Providence wouldn't get there till about 8PM, while people closer would get there sooner. Sully Square is already at max capacity every day...With the casino you can count on traffic on Rutherford backing up past Bunker Hill CC to Causeway St., the offramp backing up well into the tunnel, causing gridlock on the artery. Nav apps will push more traffic out thru Cambridge St and 28 which already have very heavy traffic. A new casino on the city’s border could generate more than 20,000 new car trips a day, according to documents filed by Wynn...So you know they'll be even higher, especially during the 1st year or so.


It's a shame that Spergon Wynn never became a household name as an NFL quarterback, because SPLURGIN' WYNN would have been on the front of the New York Post in regard to the settlement.