ILNews

AG wants disclosure of riverboat casino money

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Non-profit and for-profit companies that receive riverboat casino revenue through economic development agreements should have to disclose how they spend the money, the Indiana Attorney General told lawmakers at a legislative committee meeting on Monday.

At its third meeting of the year, the interim Gaming Study Committee met to discuss several issues relating to gambling in Indiana, including a topic that ties in directly with ongoing litigation in both state and federal courts. Where riverboat casinos operate, state law requires that a local development agreement be set up so a portion of casino revenue is set aside and directed to fund local economic development projects to boost tourism. But disclosure for how that money is spent isn't currently required.

Attorney General Greg Zoeller testified before the 11-person committee about his continued push to require public disclosure by any corporation receiving this revenue through a statutory agreement. Deputy Attorney General David Miller also appeared. The AG's support for the transparency stems from the case of East Chicago Second Century, in which a for-profit company received 0.75 percent of the revenue from the city's riverboat casino - or $16 million over 10 years. The 1995 agreement was put in place by former East Chicago Mayor Robert Pastrick, who is no longer in office.

New leadership in East Chicago canceled the Pastrick-era local development agreement, and the AG's office reports that approximately $6.3 million in revenue remained in escrow at the end of 2008. In the Pastrick case and the ongoing Second Century case in Marion Superior Court, the AG's office is trying to force open the books and impose a constructive trust over the corporation to create accountability.

Second Century got the case dismissed at the trial court and Indiana Court of Appeals levels, but in April the Indiana Supreme Court ruled in favor of the state and revived the case, sending it back to Marion Superior to decide whether Second Century must make a public disclosure of how it spent casino revenue. "Beyond asking the trial court to impose a constructive trust on the Second Century organization and reform its operation, we are trying to pry open the long-closed financial books to find out who benefited from the $16 million Second Century received," Zoeller said. "We are asking the trial court to do that with Second Century, and we are asking the legislature to require that same public disclosure wherever casinos have Local Development Agreements with outside entities, not just in East Chicago."

A disclosure provision was inserted into House Bill 1514 during the General Assembly's regular 2009 session, but it was removed during conference committee negotiations in the final days of the session last April. The committee didn't take a vote on Monday, but AG spokesman Bryan Corbin said Zoeller hopes to see the disclosure language introduced again during the upcoming session.

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Such things are no more elections than those in the late, unlamented Soviet Union.

  2. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  3. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  4. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  5. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

ADVERTISEMENT