Nevada Gaming Control Board seeks clearer surrender rules, higher fines in SB 46

The Nevada Gaming Control Board on Thursday told the Senate Judiciary Committee it is proposing modest statutory changes in Senate Bill 46 to codify the board’s existing practices for voluntary license surrenders, streamline administrative hearings and raise maximum fines for regulatory violations.

"We provided you all with a copy of our most recent Gaming Control Board quarterly report," said Kirk Hendrick, chairman of the Nevada Gaming Control Board, introducing the agency and the bill. Hendrick and senior policy counsel Sebastian Ross described a package of changes to chapter 463 of the Nevada Revised Statutes intended to clarify jurisdiction, tidy administrative terminology and update penalty limits.

The changes would (1) make clear that previously granted commission approvals and board registrations remain subject to board or commission jurisdiction even if an individual or entity attempts to voluntarily surrender a license or registration; (2) allow an investigative hearing to be conducted by a single board member or an authorized hearing examiner to streamline administrative workloads; (3) repeal a registration requirement for third parties who run tournaments on behalf of licensees while retaining the board’s ability to call those third parties for suitability reviews; (4) raise certain statutory fine caps that have not been updated in decades; and (5) clarify timelines and procedures for transmitting records for judicial review and increase the monetary threshold for patron dispute hearings from $500 to $1,000.

Why it matters: The changes aim to reduce procedural ambiguity the board says can let investigations stall or allow a party to attempt to remove itself from regulatory jurisdiction by surrendering a license. The bill would also give the Nevada Gaming Commission wider discretion to set regulatory fines and modernize administrative thresholds that have not been updated since the 1970s.

Hendrick said section 1 would "expressly codify the long standing practice of the board that the board and commission maintain the ability to pursue disciplinary action and tax collection even if a person ... wants to surrender a gaming license." He said the change responds to rare situations when applicants or licensees attempt to leave the industry while under investigation.

On penalties, the board proposes raising some maximum fine amounts: proposed statutory language discussed in the hearing would allow maximum administrative fines not to exceed $500,000 for certain initial violations and up to $1,000,000 for subsequent violations. Hendrick emphasized these are statutory caps and that the Nevada Gaming Commission would retain discretion to impose lesser amounts or negotiate settlements. He noted the commission’s largest negotiated penalties in recent memory include a $20 million negotiated fine involving Wynn Resorts and a $10 million payment by an individual licensee.

Senators pressed the board for specifics. Sen. Ellison asked how many formal disciplinary complaints the board files annually; Hendrick said contested disciplinary matters are "a handful a year, possibly between 5 and 15," while enforcement‑division complaints and service‑level contacts number in the hundreds or thousands. Ross said roughly 50 patron appeals reached the administrative hearing level between June 1, 2022, and June 1, 2024.

On voluntary surrender and continuing jurisdiction, Vice Chair Flores and other senators sought detail about how long the board would retain investigatory authority after a surrender is proposed. Hendrick said the bill is intended to codify existing practice and that the commission would adopt regulations to set a time frame. He said preliminary stakeholder discussions had suggested a practical window for initiating investigations of roughly 12 to 24 months, but that the final timeframe would be set in commission regulations following stakeholder workshops.

On the tournament registration repeal, Sebastian Ross said section 4 would remove a statutory registration requirement for third parties that conduct tournaments on behalf of licensees, while preserving the board’s ability to request suitability or licensing information from third parties when needed. Ross told the committee that "the licensee is gonna be responsible, but we'd still have jurisdiction and have the ability to call the third party forward." He added that licensees should be able to provide requested third‑party contact information on demand.

Industry groups testified neutral. Misty Grimmer of the Nevada Resort Association said the association had worked closely with the board and described its stance as neutral after the amendments, citing the need for commission regulations to set timelines. Darren Dorsey of the Association of Gaming Equipment Manufacturers said the bill’s goals were understandable but flagged the lack of a specific statutory time limit as an issue; he described circumstances (tax collection, bankruptcy, receivership) that could require longer timelines.

Board officials told the committee the change to fine caps responds in part to outdated statutory amounts: the board said the last increase occurred in 1977, and that the federal Bank Secrecy Act now places some enforcement responsibility at the federal level. Hendrick emphasized that statutory maxima are ceilings and not mandatory fines, and that negotiated settlements typically determine final outcomes in high‑profile cases.

The committee held questions and testimony and then closed the presentation; no committee vote occurred during the hearing. The bill will proceed through the committee process with the expectation that the Gaming Commission will adopt regulations to implement timing and process details referenced in the bill.

"I give you my personal guarantee and assurances that we will continue to work with all stakeholders to be sure that the language that we are proposing fits with the reality of how all of these matters should be handled by the Gaming Control Board," Hendrick said in closing.

Ending: The committee took testimony and questions but did not vote on SB 46 during the hearing. Senators and industry groups agreed to continue stakeholder discussions as the commission prepares implementing regulations that would set the specific timelines and administrative procedures the bill leaves to regulation.