Regulatory Compliance in Focus – Impacts of the Hellenic Club Decision

In December 2024, the Australian Capital Territory (ACT) Gambling and Racing Commission (the Regulator) fined the Hellenic Club of Canberra Ltd (Hellenic Club) $1.2 million for breaches of the ACT’s problem gambling safeguards. The breaches relate to:

1. failure to record “problem gambling incidents” on 28 different days involving two patrons – Marlene and Raimo Kasurinen (Problem Gambling Incidents); and
2. allowing the Kasurinens to make multiple, consecutive $200 EFTPOS transactions in breach of imposed cash withdrawal limits (EFTPOS Breaches).

The relevant ACT legislation requires licensees to record “problem gambling incidents”. A problem gambling incident occurs when a person shows signs of a gambling problem at the venue or in dealing with the licensee.

The Hellenic Club appealed the Regulator’s fine, commencing proceedings in the ACT Civil & Administrative Tribunal (the Tribunal).1

Findings

The Tribunal delivered its decision on 13 July 2026, with the following findings in respect of the Problem Gambling Incidents:

• a “gambling problem” has 2 elements: difficulty limiting the money or time spent on gambling, and adverse consequences for the person (or another person);
• “becoming aware” of a problem gambling incident requires awareness of the behaviour and its significance as a sign of possible problem gambling – this requires a subjective assessment;
• awareness includes actual awareness (simple observation alone is not enough) and wilful blindness – it does not include wilful recklessness, and the awareness of different employees cannot be aggregated;
• one employee must be aware of more than one sign of problem gambling before the recording obligation arises – a licensee is not obligated to record a problem gambling incident if they are not ‘aware’ of the incident;
• the Regulator’s decision was based on an assessment that the Hellenic Club must have been aware of each Problem Gambling Incident alleged; and
• the Regulator failed to establish the requisite subjective awareness of employees required by the ACT’s Code of Practice.

The Tribunal therefore set aside the Regulator’s decision regarding the Problem Gambling Incidents.

In respect of the EFTPOS Breaches, the Tribunal found that:

• the purpose of the relevant legislation is to minimise gambling harm;
• withdrawal includes a connected series of acts where money is taken from an account; and
• multiple, immediately consecutive EFTPOS transactions can amount to a single withdrawal.

The Tribunal upheld the Regulator’s finding regarding the EFTPOS Breaches. Penalties for the EFTPOS Breaches will be decided at a Stage 2 hearing, to take place in November this year.

What does this mean for the industry?

The Regulator had initially determined that the Hellenic Club must have been aware of each Problem Gambling Incident on the facts, relying upon evidence that:

• the Kasurinens lost at least $345,000 on gaming machines between October 2012 and February 2020 (based on carded play records);
• approximately 60% of the Kasurinen’s play was estimated to be uncarded;
• Mrs Kasurinen often played 2 – 3 gaming machines simultaneously (her membership card could only be used at one machine at any given time); and
• Mrs Kasurinen was recorded in the Hellenic Club’s internal reports as one of their Top 20 gamblers;

However, the Tribunal adopted a narrow interpretation of the ACT’s recording obligations – centred on a subjective assessment of whether individual employees are aware of Problem Gambling Incidents.

The Tribunal also confirmed that knowledge held by one employee cannot be aggregated with the knowledge held by another employee to establish awareness of problem gambling signs – this creates a relatively high evidentiary burden for regulators.

Notwithstanding the above, it is clear from the Regulator’s initial decision and appeal submissions that the Regulator will focus on:

1. the training of staff members of licensed venues, specifically in relation to Responsible Conduct of Gambling / Responsible Service of Gambling standards; and
2. more holistic communication and incident reporting, compliance and monitoring systems at venues – including incident registers, shift reports, staff notes, and patron interaction records,

with a view to assessing compliance and establishing staff awareness of Problem Gambling Incidents.

Venues will need to have in place systems which assist in recording responsible gambling interactions, escalating concerns internally, and maintaining compliance records. We consider that Australian regulators will heavily scrutinize willful blindness of problem gambling incidents.

Conclusion and Takeaways

While the Tribunal’s decision regarding the Problem Gambling Incidents limits the circumstances in which venue operators may be found to have breached their record-keeping obligations, it should not be viewed as reducing the industry’s broader responsible gambling obligations.

Rather, the case highlights the challenges that regulators face in establishing employee awareness and reinforces the importance of robust staff training and internal escalation pathways, and comprehensive recordkeeping practices. Venues that can demonstrate effective systems for identifying, documenting and responding to signs of gambling harm will be best positioned to satisfy regulatory expectations and respond to increased scrutiny.

In their determination relating to the EFTPOS Breaches, the decision of the Regulator and the Tribunal demonstrate a focus on cracking down on practices intended to circumvent requirements for safer gambling practices – acknowledging the underlying harm minimisation aim of the regulatory framework, and confirming that regulators and decision-makers will continue to interpret gambling legislation through this lens.

Accordingly, the decision should be understood as clarifying both existing enforcement mechanisms and signalling future regulatory direction. Venue operators, suppliers and other industry participants should expect a continued focus by regulators on responsible gambling compliance, enhanced monitoring practices and potential legislative and/or regulatory reform aimed at strengthening harm minimisation outcomes. The Tribunal’s decision ultimately clarifies the expectations placed on industry participants to actively identify, manage and document problem gambling incidents.

The Tribunal’s decision can be found here.

For more information or for advice on Australia’s gaming and gambling regulation, or gambling law-related issues, contact a member of Addisons’ Gaming & Gambling Team.