Executives at Crown Resorts acted “with bona fides and honesty” in their judgments about the risks of doing business in China before the arrests of 19 staff in 2016, counsel for Crown has told a NSW inquiry.
Crown has begun making final submissions to the Independent Liquor and Gaming Authority inquiry before the former supreme court judge Patricia Bergin SC.
She will recommend whether the company remains suitable to hold a limited high roller gaming licence in NSW.
Tensions were on display on Monday morning, as the Crown counsel, Neil Young QC, attempted to table several new reports the company has compiled. Young said the casino giant had not been given a fair hearing because counsel assisting had raised several new grounds relating to unsuitability late in its submissions.
“In our submissions we have not had a fair opportunity to address the evidence and submissions until now.”
Bergin replied: “I think that’s a little unfair,” noting that there had been 52 days of hearings and Crown was only now proposing to submit additional material.
Counsel assisting has submitted that Crown had failed the suitability test on multiple grounds, but Crown has resisted any suggestion that it should defer the opening of its $2bn Barangaroo casino next month.
The authority is due to meet on Wednesday to consider whether to order the opening be postponed.
Meanwhile, Crown has argued that counsel assisting the inquiry misrepresented the law in China, and unfairly portrayed the evidence about Crown’s attempts to comply with the law.
Counsel assisting argued that executives failed to heed warning signs from Chinese authorities of a crackdown, and failed to pass on information about specific incidents in China, including two staff being questioned and subsequently arrested by the State Security Bureau.
But Young said Crown had been acting on legal advice and on the judgment of its China experts on the ground.
“Because of western perspectives and because of the legal advices which made clear the textual interpretations of the law, senior executives made the assumptions that there was the rule of law in China,” he said.
“Accordingly that mistake should not be judged severely. It was a bona fide and honest mistake,” he said.
He said it was wrong to interpret warning signs, such as the questioning of staff, with the benefit of hindsight.
Young also argued that competitors, including the Star and Sky City, which both operate casinos in Australia, were running similar operations.
Crown was relying on a 2005 Chinese supreme court ruling which their lawyers said made their activities legal, Young said.
“In our submission the contention that Crown proceeded on fine distinctions is not supported by the evidence. That Crown did not abide by the spirit of the law is also not supported,” Young said. He said it would be an unsound basis for a finding of unsuitability.
Crown’s submissions are expected to continue for most of the week and deal with other submissions by counsel assisting, including that Crown turned a blind eye to money laundering, and dealt with junkets which had criminal connections.
It will then address steps that may be taken to make the company compliant, such as executive and board changes.
