WA casino watchdog’s boat-sale Crown link

WA’s chief casino officer told his boss that the sale of a boat to a member of Crown’s legal and compliance team represented neither a real nor perceived conflict of interest

Crown Casino in Perth. Picture: Colin Murty

The West Australian gambling regulator’s chief casino officer at the time hundreds of millions of dollars were being laundered through Crown’s Perth casino sold a boat to a friend in Crown’s legal and compliance team but did not believe the transaction represented a conflict of interest.

Mick Connolly — a deputy ­director general who stepped down as the chief casino officer within WA’s Department of Local Government, Sport and Cultural Industries after his close friendships with two Crown compliance staff were revealed in the media — defended his disclosures around those relationships when he ­appeared before WA’s Royal Commission into the Perth ­Casino on Wednesday.

Counsel assisting the commission, Patricia Cahill SC, revealed that Mr Connolly had bought a second-hand boat in around 2015 for $8000, and ultimately sold it to his friend and Crown staffer Claude Marais for $13,000.

After taking into account the money spent by Mr Connolly on repairing and restoring the boat, the chief casino officer made a $116 profit on the transaction.

Mr Connolly sent an email to the then-director general, Barry Sargeant, disclosing the transaction but stated in that message he did not consider the deal to be either a real or perceived conflict of interest.

“Did it occur to you at the time you were selling this boat to a Crown employee that the person in the street could take the view that your independence in the role of influencing what Crown Perth could or could not do as a casino operator could be influenced by this transaction?” Ms Cahill asked.

Mr Connolly replied: “I don’t think that occurred to me at the time.”

“What about if the man in the street perceived that it could have been difficult for you to sell the boat through an arm’s length sale to recoup the money you had spent on it, and this was a favour, if you will, to take the boat off your hands and recoup your money?” Ms Cahill said.

Mr Connolly replied that he had not thought of that scenario.

He agreed with Ms Cahill’s characterisation that Mr Con­nolly was “effectively running the show” at the Gaming and Wagering Commission from 2017 onwards when Mr Sargeant was replaced as chair by Duncan Ord.

Mr Connolly had formed and maintained close friendships with two Crown employees, Mr Marais and former colleague Paul Hulme, during his time as chief casino officer and would often go on fishing trips with the men.

He said he had made verbal declarations of those conflicts to his managers but acknowledged he could have been more formal in his disclosures. “I don’t think I gave it enough thought. I would concede that I absolutely could have done better and declared these more formally, but it didn’t occur to me,” he said.

But he insisted the possible conflicts had not influenced any of the decisions he had made in his role. “I think the records of the types of decisions that have been made by the Gaming and Wagering Commission and the input I’ve had would show that, on balance, there is a balance of things I’ve supported … and things I haven’t supported from Crown,” he said.

The royal commission is investigating Crown’s conduct at the casino as well as the procedures and processes of the state’s gambling regulator, the GWC.

The inquiry has heard there had been little to no formal training for senior personnel within the GWC, while the official manual governing the ­casino contained no measures specific to money laundering within the casino.