Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Suitability Hearing topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Ainsworth CEO’s Nevada licensure probe referred back to staff after tense board hearing

Nevada Gaming Control Board · October 8, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The Nevada Gaming Control Board referred Ainsworth CEO Harold Neumann’s suitability application back to staff after a lengthy hearing on Oct. 8 that revealed late disclosures and contentious interactions with agents.

Harold Neumann, CEO of Ainsworth Game Technology, appeared before the Nevada Gaming Control Board on Oct. 8 for an extended suitability review after the board’s agents reported late disclosures, text messages of concern uncovered on a company phone and the executive’s initial reluctance to turn over that device.

Neumann told the board he had not intended to conceal information and described multiple misunderstandings: late reporting of residences and a home in Greece, a brief freelance journalism visa entry, and payments to an associate he described as a girlfriend. The board reviewed evidence that some disclosures were not timely updated from an application first filed in 2021, and that agents found texts the board said were “inappropriate.” Neumann said he apologized for lapses and said cultural differences and privacy protections in Austria contributed to his hesitation to surrender a personal phone. He ultimately turned the device over and said any deletions were routine housekeeping, not intentional concealment.

Board members repeatedly pressed Neumann about whether his tone and candor during agent interviews had been obstructive or disrespectful. Some members described the interactions as hostile and said they had little confidence in his candidness. After more than an hour of questioning and closing statements from company counsel, the Board voted to refer the matter back to staff for follow‑up and asked staff to request that the applicant withdraw the Nevada application; members said they were not prepared to approve suitability at this time.

The Board made clear the referral is an administrative disposition that preserves staff options to investigate further or to pursue a formal denial. Neumann and his counsel were informed the referral may trigger additional enforcement or further investigation depending on what staff finds.