Crown Melbourne Fined After Excluded Gambler Spent Nearly 15 Hours on Gaming Floor

Crown Melbourne has been fined A$100,000 after an excluded patron managed to gamble inside the venue for almost 15 hours uninterrupted, raising fresh concerns about the casino’s ability to enforce key harm-minimisation measures. The Victorian Gambling and Casino Control Commission (VGCCC) issued the penalty after finding the individual spent 14 hours and 40 minutes playing without being detected by staff or automated surveillance systems.

The breach occurred on October 31, 2024, only two months after the person had been formally excluded from the casino due to welfare concerns. Despite that exclusion, the patron accessed the gaming floor, moved freely around the venue, and gambled continuously across the lengthy session. The VGCCC said no PlaySafe attendant or other employee approached the individual at any time during the nearly 15-hour period.

Excluded Patron Avoided Detection for an Entire Shift

According to the regulator’s findings, the person made deliberate efforts to conceal their identity once inside the venue. Even so, the VGCCC concluded that the casino’s systems should have been able to identify them, particularly given the length of time the patron remained on the floor.

Facial recognition tools, floor surveillance, and PlaySafe monitoring are all intended to alert staff when banned or vulnerable individuals enter restricted areas. In this case, none of those systems intervened. Crown staff only learned of the breach when a VGCCC inspector, present on the premises for routine oversight, notified the venue.

The regulator said the incident illustrates how monitoring gaps can persist even when casinos invest heavily in technology and staff observation. With thousands of people moving through large gaming floors each day, reliance on systems that fail to detect excluded patrons leaves the operator exposed to regulatory consequences.

Exclusion Orders Highlight Ongoing Challenges

The VGCCC described exclusion orders as a core component of Victoria’s harm-minimisation framework. These orders are designed to create a clear barrier between a person experiencing gambling-related risk and the environment that fuels that risk. When the barrier is breached, regulators argue that the risk of harm increases significantly.

In this case, the regulator noted that almost 15 hours of continuous play without a single intervention is a sign that Crown still faces significant challenges in enforcing its responsible gambling requirements. This is despite multiple rounds of reform following high-profile inquiries into Crown Resorts’ operational culture, compliance failures, and inadequate oversight of patrons displaying signs of harm.

The VGCCC added that while excluded patrons sometimes go to great lengths to avoid detection, the responsibility ultimately sits with the casino to ensure that its systems remain robust and responsive.

Self-Exclusion at Land-Based and Online Casinos

Self-exclusion remains one of the most effective tools for people who feel their gambling is becoming challenging to manage. At land-based venues like Crown Melbourne, exclusion relies heavily on physical monitoring, facial recognition, and on-floor staff intervention. 

Meanwhile, many Australian online casinos use automated systems to lock accounts instantly when someone chooses to self-exclude. These tools include cooling-off periods, deposit limits, and session reminders, approaches that can be more consistent than relying solely on in-person detection. 

For anyone feeling at risk, formal self-exclusion options are available across both land-based and online environments, offering clearer boundaries and additional safeguards.

Crown’s Compliance History Remains Under Scrutiny

This fine is one of many compliance actions taken against Crown Melbourne over the past several years. The 2021 Victorian Royal Commission found the operator unfit to hold a licence at the time, citing long-term governance failures, lax responsible-gambling procedures, and insufficient action on money-laundering risks. Similar findings were recorded in the NSW Bergin Inquiry.

Those investigations resulted in an overhaul of Crown’s business, enhanced regulatory oversight, and hundreds of millions of dollars in penalties. The operator spent two years under special supervision in Victoria while working to rebuild its compliance framework and responsible-gambling culture.

Although the casino has made progress, the VGCCC said this latest incident shows that gaps remain,  particularly in the area of enforcing exclusions and maintaining real-time oversight of patrons who may be at risk.

Steps Taken by Crown Melbourne Since the Breach

The VGCCC noted that Crown cooperated fully with the investigation and has implemented several changes over the past 12 months to reduce the likelihood of similar breaches occurring in the future. These actions include:

• Reconfiguring entrances to the gaming floor to improve line-of-sight and staff visibility
• Repositioning and reviewing facial-recognition cameras
• Increasing training for staff responsible for identifying excluded individuals
• Conducting ongoing assessments of entry-point controls and monitoring practices

These changes form part of a broader shift within Crown following years of regulatory action. The operator has publicly committed to improving responsible gambling outcomes and strengthening internal processes to meet the standards set by the VGCCC.

Regulator Calls for Ongoing Improvement

The regulator emphasised that enforcing exclusions is inherently challenging, especially in large venues with multiple access points, but said that does not diminish the operator’s responsibility. The VGCCC expects Crown Melbourne to continue assessing and upgrading its systems to ensure excluded individuals are quickly identified and prevented from accessing the gaming floor.

For now, the A$100,000 fine serves as another reminder that regulators remain focused on ensuring casinos do more to protect vulnerable patrons, and that lapses, even those involving deliberate attempts to avoid detection,  will attract financial and operational consequences.