Crown Melbourne Penalised After Excluded Patron Gambles for Nearly 15 Hours

Crown Melbourne is facing renewed regulatory pressure after an excluded player remained on the gaming floor for almost 15 hours without being detected. The Victorian Gambling and Casino Control Commission (VGCCC) has issued a A$100,000 penalty, concluding that the casino failed to enforce a standing exclusion order intended to protect the individual’s welfare.

The breach occurred on October 31, 2024, when the patron,  barred only two months earlier,  accessed the property and spent 14 hours and 40 minutes gambling. During that time, the person moved freely around the gaming floor, undetected by staff or surveillance technology.

A Breach Identified by an Inspector, Not the Venue

The VGCCC’s investigation found that the individual attempted to obscure their appearance, but the casino’s systems still should have flagged their presence. Crown’s PlaySafe team, security staff, and facial-recognition tools are all designed to identify excluded patrons. However, none of these measures identified the breach, which only came to light when a VGCCC inspector on-site noticed the individual.

According to the regulator, the incident demonstrates that the venue’s monitoring processes were not functioning to the standard expected, particularly in exclusion enforcement. This area has already placed the operator under scrutiny.

What the Breach Reveals About Oversight

Exclusion orders play a central role in Victoria’s harm-minimisation framework, and failures to uphold them can significantly increase the risk to vulnerable individuals. This case underscored weaknesses in Crown Melbourne’s ability to identify barred patrons in real time, despite technological upgrades and additional staff training introduced in recent years.

The VGCCC noted that while some excluded players attempt to avoid detection, the responsibility for maintaining robust systems clearly remains with the operator. The breach also comes in the context of broader concerns about the Crown’s responsible-gambling controls, including earlier regulatory action over self-exclusion failures at Crown Melbourne, which resulted in substantially higher penalties.

Self-Exclusion Processes Across Different Gambling Environments

The incident has prompted renewed conversation about how self-exclusion is enforced at both land-based casinos and online gambling platforms accepting Australian players. Land-based venues must rely on facial recognition, floor staff, and security checkpoints, all of which can be affected by busy environments and human oversight.

Online casinos, on the other hand, use automated restrictions. Once a player activates a self-exclusion, access is blocked instantly, deposits are stopped, and gameplay is disabled. These digital barriers can be more consistent because they do not depend on visual identification. However, both land-based and online operators encourage players to use exclusion tools early if they feel their gambling behaviour is becoming challenging to manage.

A Long Pattern of Regulatory Scrutiny

This latest breach adds to a long-running history of compliance issues at Crown Melbourne. The 2021 Victorian Royal Commission found significant failures in responsible-gambling controls, anti-money laundering protections, and organisational governance. Similar concerns were echoed in the NSW Bergin Inquiry.

Those findings led to sweeping reforms, a period of special supervision, and substantial financial penalties. While the operator has since made improvements, the VGCCC said this latest case indicates that further work is still required, especially in areas where technology and staff oversight must work together.

Measures Introduced Since the Incident

Crown Melbourne told the regulator it has adopted several new procedures since the October 2024 breach. These include:

• Adjustments to the layout of gaming floor entry points
• Changes to the placement and angle of facial-recognition cameras
• More comprehensive training for staff responsible for monitoring access
• Ongoing internal audits to identify weaknesses in detection processes

The VGCCC noted that Crown cooperated fully with the investigation and has committed to continued improvements.

Regulator Calls for Further Strengthening of Controls

The VGCCC stressed that enforcement of exclusion is complex in large venues but remains a fundamental obligation. Multiple entrances, heavy foot traffic and vast gaming areas increase the challenge, but do not lessen the requirement for consistent vigilance.

The A$100,000 fine serves as another reminder that regulators expect higher standards, especially when excluded or vulnerable individuals are involved. According to the Commission, Crown Melbourne must ensure that its internal systems can reliably identify prohibited patrons before similar breaches occur again.