{"id":"BILL-TAS-gaming-control-amendment-dealing-with-stolen-money-bill-2025","name":"Gaming Control Amendment (Dealing with Stolen Money) Bill 2025","slug":"gaming-control-amendment-dealing-with-stolen-money-bill-2025","collection":"bill","jurisdiction":"tas","status":"in_force","isInForce":true,"actNumber":null,"makingDate":"2025-01-01","administeringDepartment":null,"currentVersion":{"id":446185,"registerId":"BILL-TAS-gaming-control-amendment-dealing-with-stolen-money-bill-2025:current","compilationNumber":null,"startDate":"2025-01-01","status":"in_force","reasons":null,"registeredAt":"2026-05-08T16:48:14.306Z"},"sections":[{"sectionNumber":"retrieval-0001","sectionType":"document_chunk","heading":"Document excerpt 1","content":"# Gaming Control Amendment (Dealing with Stolen Money) Bill 2025\n\n[Bill ]-VII\nTASMANIA\n__________\nGAMING CONTROL AMENDMENT (DEALING\nWITH STOLEN MONEY) BILL 2025\n__________\nCONTENTS\n1. Short title\n2. Commencement\n3. Principal Act\n4. Part 5, Division 3A inserted\nDivision 3A – Dealing with stolen money\n112KA. Interpretation of Division\n112KB. Duty to report stolen money to police officer\n112KC. Making of gaming compensation order\n112KD. Amount of compensation payable\n112KE. Effect on rights to recover damages\n112KF. Enforcement of gaming compensation order\n112KG. Transitional provision\n5. Repeal of Act\n\n2\n\n[Bill ] 3\nGAMING CONTROL AMENDMENT (DEALING\nWITH STOLEN MONEY) BILL 2025\n(Brought in by Kristie Johnston, MP)\nA BILL FOR\nAn Act to amend the Gaming Control Act 1993\nBe it enacted by Her Excellency the Governor of Tasmania, by\nand with the advice and consent of the Legislative Council and\nHouse of Assembly, in Parliament assembled, as follows:\n1. Short title\nThis Act may be cited as the Gaming Control\nAmendment (Dealing with Stolen Money) Act\n2025.\n2. Commencement\nThis Act commences on the day on which this\nAct receives the Royal Assent.\n3. Principal Act\nIn this Act, the Gaming Control Act 1993* is\nreferred to as the Principal Act.\n_______________________________________________________________\n*No. 94 of 1993\n\nGaming Control Amendment (Dealing with Stolen Money) Act\n2025\nAct No. of 2025\ns. 4\n4\n4. Part 5, Division 3A inserted\nAfter section 112K of the Principal Act, the\nfollowing Division is inserted in Part 5:\nDivision 3A – Dealing with stolen money\n112KA. Interpretation of Division\n(1) In this Division –\ngaming compensation order means an\norder made under section\n112KC(1);\ngaming premises means premises\nwhere a person may wager with,\nor otherwise participate in a game\nor gaming activity conducted by,\na relevant licence holder;\nperson-in-charge means a person for\nthe time being apparently in\ncharge of gaming premises;\nrelevant licence holder means the\nholder of any of the following:\n(a) a casino licence;\n(b) a venue licence;\n(c) a keno operator’s licence;\n(d) a minor gaming permit;\n\nGaming Control Amendment (Dealing with Stolen Money) Act\n2025\nAct No. of 2025\ns. 4\n5\n(e) a Tasmanian gaming\nlicence;\nvictim means a person from whom\nmoney was stolen.\n(2) In this Division, a reference to money\nbeing stolen by a person includes money\nthat has been obtained by that person by\nembezzlement, fraud, theft or any other\nunlawful means.\n112KB. Duty to report stolen money to police officer\nA relevant licence holder must\nimmediately notify a police officer if the\nrelevant licence holder suspects on\nreasonable grounds that a person –\n(a) intends to wager on, or otherwise\nparticipate in, any gaming, game,\nor gaming activity, with money\nthat has been stolen by that\nperson; or\n(b) has wagered on, or otherwise\nparticipated in, gaming, a game\nor gaming activity with money\nthat has been stolen by that\nperson.\nPenalty: A fine not exceeding 10 000\npenalty units.\n\nGaming Control Amendment (Dealing with Stolen Money) Act\n2025\nAct No. of 2025\ns. 4\n6\n112KC. Making of gaming compensation order\n(1) A court must make an order requiring a\nrelevant licence holder to pay\ncompensation to a victim if –\n(a) a person (the offender) is found\nguilty, or is convicted, by the\ncourt of an offence involving the\nstealing of money by that person\nfrom the victim; and\n(b) the court is satisfied on the\nbalance of probabilities that some\nor all of the money stolen by the\noffender was used to wager on, or\nparticipate in, any gaming, game,\nor gaming activity, conducted by\nthe relevant licence holder.\n(2) An order may be made under subsection\n(1) by the court –\n(a) on its own motion; or\n(b) on an application made on the\nvictim’s behalf by the Director of\nPublic Prosecutions, if the\nsentencing court was the Supreme\nCourt, or by the complainant or\npolice prosecutor, if the\nsentencing court was a court of\npetty sessions.\n(3) Nothing in subsection (2)(b) requires the\nDirector of Public Prosecutions or the\n\nGaming Control Amendment (Dealing with Stolen Money) Act\n2025\nAct No. of 2025\ns. 4\n7\ncomplainant or police prosecutor (as the\ncase requires) to make an application on\nbehalf of a victim.\n(4) An application under subsection (2)(b) is\nto be made as soon as practicable after\nthe offender is found guilty or is\nconvicted of the offence.\n(5) A relevant licence holder is entitled to\nappear and be heard in a proceeding in\nrelation to the making of a gaming\ncompensation order in respect of that\nrelevant licence holder.\n112KD. Amount of compensation payable\n(1) In this section –\nsentencing compensation order\nmeans a compensation order\nmade under section 68 of the\nSentencing Act 1997.\n(2) The compensation payable to a victim by\na relevant licence holder under a gaming\ncompensation order is not to exceed the\namount of money that was stolen from\nthe victim by the offender.\n(3) In determining the compensation payable\nto a victim under a gaming compensation\norder in respect of an offence, the court is\nnot to take into account any unpaid\namount payable to the victim under a\n\nGaming Control Amendment (Dealing with Stolen Money) Act\n2025\nAct No. of 2025\ns. 4\n8\nsentencing compensation order in respect\nof the same offence.\n(4) In determining the amount of\ncompensation that a victim is entitled to\nrecover under a gaming compensation\norder, the court is not bound by the rules\nof evidence and it may inform itself in\nany matter in any way that it considers\nappropriate.\n112KE. Effect on rights to recover damages\n(1) If a relevant licence holder is required to\npay compensation to a victim under a\ngaming compensation order, any unpaid\namount payable to that victim under a\nsentencing compensation order in respect\nof the same offence is payable by the\noffender to the relevant licence holder\ninstead of the victim.\n(2) Nothing in this Division takes away\nfrom, or affects the right of, any person\nto recover damages for, or to be\nindemnified against, any injury, loss,\ndestruction or damage so far as it is not\nsatisfied by a gaming compensation\norder.\n\nGaming Control Amendment (Dealing with Stolen Money) Act\n2025\nAct No. of 2025\ns. 4\n9\n112KF. Enforcement of gaming compensation order\n(1) A gaming compensation order is taken to\nbe a fine enforceable under the Monetary\nPenalties Enforcement Act 2005.\n(2) If the amount payable under a gaming\ncompensation order has been deemed\nuncollectable in full or in part under\nsection 109 of the Monetary Penalties\nEnforcement Act 2005, the order –\n(a) in the case of a gaming\ncompensation order made by the\nSupreme Court, is taken to be a\njudgment of the Supreme Court\nand is enforceable under the\nSupreme Court Civil Procedure\nAct 1932; or\n(b) in the case of a gaming\ncompensation order made by a\ncourt of petty sessions, is taken to\nbe a judgment of the Magistrates\nCourt (Civil Division) and is\nenforceable under the\nMagistrates Court (Civil\nDivision) Act 1992.\n112KG. Transitional provision\n(1) Subject to subsection (2), a court may\nmake a gaming compensation order\nunder this Division in respect of an\noffence regardless of –\n\nGaming Control Amendment (Dealing with Stolen Money) Act\n2025\nAct No. of 2025\ns. 5\n10\n(a) whether the offence was\ncommitted before or after the\ncommencement of this Division;\nand\n(b) whether proceedings for the\noffence commenced before or\nafter the commencement of this\nDivision.\n(2) A court may not make a gaming\ncompensation order in respect of an\noffence if a court has, before the\ncommencement of this Division, passed\nsentence on the offender in respect of the\noffence.\n5. Repeal of Act\nThis Act is repealed on the first anniversary of\nthe day on which it commenced.\nGovernment Printer, Tasmania","sortOrder":0}],"analysis":{"flash_summary":{"complexity_score":6,"scope_assessment":{"changed":true,"description":"This amendment meaningfully expands the regulatory reach of the Gaming Control Act 1993 beyond traditional licensing, supervision and on‑premises conduct. It imposes new affirmative duties on licence holders to report suspected stolen‑money gambling (112KB), creates direct civil liability for licence holders to compensate victims when a court is satisfied stolen money was used at their premises (112KC–112KD), and ties the gaming regulatory regime into criminal sentencing compensation outcomes (112KE). The Division also alters enforcement mechanisms by treating compensation orders as monetary penalties and, if necessary, converting them into civil judgments (112KF). The transitional clause allows retrospective application for offences committed before commencement (112KG). Finally, the Act is time‑limited by a one‑year repeal (s. 5), indicating a temporary expansion rather than a permanent change."},"complexity_factors":["Inserted Division contains 6 defined terms in section 112KA plus an expansive definition of 'stolen' (including embezzlement, fraud etc.)","Cross‑references to multiple external Acts: Sentencing Act 1997 (s68), Monetary Penalties Enforcement Act 2005 (s109), Supreme Court Civil Procedure Act 1932, Magistrates Court (Civil Division) Act 1992","Two different legal standards in play: criminal conviction requirement to trigger the order vs civil (balance of probabilities) standard for linking stolen money to gaming (112KC(1)(b))","Disapplication of rules of evidence for determining compensation amounts (112KD(4))","Multiple procedural pathways: court may act on own motion or on application by DPP/complainant/police prosecutor depending on forum (112KC(2))","Heavy penalty exposure for reporting failures (up to 10,000 penalty units) creating large compliance stakes (112KB)","Transitional and retroactive reach permitting orders for past offences and proceedings subject to the sentence not already being passed (112KG)","Complex enforcement ladder: treated as a fine under monetary penalties law, but convertible to judgments enforceable under civil procedure Acts if declared uncollectable (112KF)","Statutory sunset after one year (s. 5) complicates long‑term compliance planning and regulatory design"],"plain_english_summary":"**What this bill does (mechanically)\n\n- Inserts a new Division (Division 3A) into Part 5 of the Gaming Control Act 1993 that creates duties and new civil remedies related to stolen money used at gambling premises. (See new sections 112KA–112KG.)\n\n- Defines who is caught: holders of casino licences, venue licences, keno operator licences, minor gaming permits and Tasmanian gaming licences, plus the person \"in charge\" of gaming premises. (112KA)\n\n- Imposes an immediate duty on those licence holders to notify a police officer if they have reasonable grounds to suspect a person intends to, or has, gambled with money stolen by that person. Breach attracts a heavy fine (up to 10,000 penalty units). (112KB)\n\n- Gives courts power, after a person is convicted of stealing money from a victim, to order the relevant licence holder to pay compensation to the victim if the court is satisfied on the balance of probabilities that some or all of the stolen money was used for gaming at the licence holder's premises. The order may be made by the sentencing court either on its own motion or on application by the DPP/complainant/police prosecutor (depending on the court). The licence holder has a right to appear and be heard. (112KC)\n\n- Caps the licence holder's liability at the amount stolen from the victim and prevents double recovery by disallowing reliance on unpaid sentencing compensation orders for the same offence when calculating this amount. The court need not follow formal rules of evidence and may inform itself as it considers appropriate. (112KD)\n\n- Provides that if a licence holder pays under a gaming compensation order, any unpaid amount under a sentencing compensation order for the same offence becomes payable by the offender to the licence holder (not the victim). It also preserves other civil recovery rights that are not satisfied by a gaming compensation order. (112KE)\n\n- Treats a gaming compensation order as a fine, enforceable under the Monetary Penalties Enforcement Act 2005; if declared uncollectable under that Act, the order becomes a judgment of the appropriate court and is enforceable under the ordinary civil procedure Acts. (112KF)\n\n- Allows the courts to apply these orders to offences committed or proceedings started before the new Division commenced, except where sentence was already passed before commencement. (112KG)\n\n- The amending Act is repealed automatically one year after commencement (a one‑year sunset). (s. 5)\n\nWho this affects\n\n- Primary costs and compliance obligations fall on \"relevant licence holders\": casinos, venue licence holders, keno operators, minor gaming permit holders and holders of Tasmanian gaming licences. (112KA)\n- Victims of theft are given a new, direct route to compensation tied to the use of stolen funds at gambling venues (112KC–112KD).\n- Criminal defendants convicted of theft are the triggering event for court consideration of compensation orders; their sentencing proceeding is the procedural hook (112KC, 112KG).\n- Police and prosecutors are engaged through the duty to notify and the application mechanism for compensation orders (112KB, 112KC).\n\nWhy it matters (claimed purpose and what the mechanics imply)\n\n- The bill is drafted to ensure victims can recover stolen funds when those funds were gambled at licensed premises by offenders (112KC–112KD). That is the stated or implied policy objective.\n\n- Mechanically, the bill shifts some financial risk from victims to licence holders in specific cases where stolen money can be traced to gaming at licensed premises. The licence holder may be ordered to pay up to the amount stolen (112KD(2)).\n\n- It also creates an immediate operational duty to report suspected use of stolen money to police (112KB), and threatens significant fines for non‑compliance.\n\nCosts, incentives and trade‑offs (concrete mechanisms)\n\n- Who pays: licence holders can be ordered to pay compensation (112KC–112KD). If licence holders pay, unpaid sentencing compensation becomes payable by the offender to the licence holder instead of the victim (112KE(1)), which partially shifts recovery effort back to the offender.\n\n- Compliance burden: licence holders must implement detection, reporting procedures and staff training so they can \"immediately\" notify police when they have reasonable grounds to suspect stolen‑money gambling (112KB). Non‑compliance carries a large financial penalty.\n\n- Litigation and evidence: the court may use a civil standard (balance of probabilities) to decide whether stolen money was used, and is not bound by rules of evidence (112KC(1)(b), 112KD(4)). That lowers the ordinary criminal evidentiary hurdle for linking stolen funds to particular gaming activity and may increase contested hearings involving licence holders.\n\n- Enforcement: compensation orders are enforced like fines under existing monetary penalties legislation and, if declared uncollectable by that system, are converted into ordinary civil judgments enforceable under Supreme/Magistrates Court procedure (112KF). That creates multiple enforcement pathways.\n\n- Scope and retroactivity: courts may make orders for offences committed before the law commences and for proceedings already under way, so long as sentence was not already passed (112KG). That expands reach beyond future conduct.\n\n- Time limit: the whole scheme is temporary — the Act repeals itself one year after commencement (s. 5). That limits long‑term legal change and suggests a trial or transitional design.\n\nPossible implementation risks and interactions to note (mechanisms, not judgments)\n\n- Tracing and proof: courts may be called on to infer from available material (surveillance, cash records, machine records, admissions) whether stolen funds were used; the bill explicitly allows relaxed evidentiary rules (112KD(4)).\n\n- Incentive to pursue licensees: victims gain a new path to recovery against well‑capitalised licensees rather than relying solely on the offender's assets; that concentrates benefits for victims and shifts enforcement costs to licence holders.\n\n- Operational costs may be concentrated: heightened reporting duties, record‑keeping, and potentially higher compliance and insurance costs for licence holders.\n\n- Interaction with criminal compensation: the statutory mechanism changes who receives unpaid sentencing compensation in cases where licence holders are ordered to pay (112KE(1)).\n\n- Temporary duration: the one‑year repeal (s. 5) limits long‑term regulatory change but creates uncertainty for longer‑term compliance investments.\n\nKey sections to look at quickly: 112KB (reporting duty and penalty), 112KC–112KD (court’s power to order payment and limits), 112KE (interaction with sentencing compensation), 112KF (enforcement), 112KG (transitional application), s.5 (sunset).\n"},"summary":{"status_summary":"Introduced in the Tasmanian House of Assembly by Kristie Johnston MP; awaiting further parliamentary stages.","complexity_score":4,"likely_questions":["Who qualifies as a victim under this Bill and how do they apply for a gaming compensation order?","What is the current dollar value of a penalty unit in Tasmania?","Can a licence holder challenge a gaming compensation order if they had no knowledge the money was stolen?","How does the court determine, on the balance of probabilities, that stolen money was used for gambling at specific premises?","Does the licence holder have any right to recover the compensation from the offender, or is the loss final?","Why is the Act repealed after one year, and what happens to the new Division after that repeal?"],"complexity_factors":["Imposes a mandatory reporting duty with a substantial penalty on licence holders","Creates a new compensation order payable by a third-party business rather than the offender","Interlinks with existing sentencing compensation orders and the Monetary Penalties Enforcement Act","Transitional provisions apply to offences committed before the Bill's commencement","Includes a sunset clause that repeals the amending Act after one year"],"plain_english_summary":"This Bill forces casinos, venues, keno operators and other Tasmanian gaming licence holders to notify police if they reasonably suspect money to be stolen, and requires courts to order licence holders to compensate victims where stolen funds were gambled. It shifts enforcement and financial risk onto the gambling industry, improving victims’ recovery but raising compliance costs and likely affecting prices or cash-handling policies. A one‑year repeal of the amending Act is included, though the new Division remains in force."}},"importantCases":[],"_links":{"self":"/api/acts/gaming-control-amendment-dealing-with-stolen-money-bill-2025","history":"/api/acts/gaming-control-amendment-dealing-with-stolen-money-bill-2025/history","analysis":"/api/acts/gaming-control-amendment-dealing-with-stolen-money-bill-2025/analysis","conflicts":"/api/acts/gaming-control-amendment-dealing-with-stolen-money-bill-2025/conflicts","importantCases":"/api/acts/gaming-control-amendment-dealing-with-stolen-money-bill-2025/important-cases","documents":"/api/acts/gaming-control-amendment-dealing-with-stolen-money-bill-2025/documents"}}