Star's Former CEO and Legal Chief Banned and Fined as SkyCity Settles Adelaide

The Federal Court of Australia has banned two former senior executives of Star Entertainment Group from managing companies and fined them personally over failures to control money-laundering risk, the same week SkyCity Entertainment Group agreed to pay AU$21 million and restructure the governance of its Adelaide casino to settle a separate regulatory matter. The two actions land on the same set of anti-money-laundering obligations that have driven the largest enforcement penalties in Australian casino history.

Justice Michael Lee, the same judge who has handled multiple recent casino cases, found that former Star chief executive Matthias Bekier and former chief legal and risk officer Paula Martin breached the duties they owed as senior officers of a licensed casino operator. He disqualified Bekier from managing corporations for six years and fined him AUD 700,000 (about US$491,000). Martin was disqualified for seven years and fined AUD 400,000 (about US$280,000). The Australian Securities and Investments Commission, which brought the case, had sought higher penalties. In a related part of the same proceeding, the court found that Star's non-executive directors did not breach their duties. The enforcement pattern echoes the cross-border legal exposure now common across the gaming sector.

The Star executive bans

ASIC's case centered on the company's dealings with Suncity, the junket operator run by Alvin Chau that channeled high-roller play into Star casinos despite mounting public reporting and internal warnings linking the operation to organized crime. Chau was later sentenced in Macau to 18 years in prison in 2023 over illegal gambling and criminal-association charges. ASIC argued that Bekier and Martin presided over a serious supervisory lapse by allowing the relationship to continue.

Justice Lee framed the penalties as a deterrent message to the wider industry. "It is one thing to regret the consequences of an investigation and suit," he said. "It is another to demonstrate an appreciation of why the conduct involved serious failures in the discharge of duties owed by senior officers of a casino operator." He noted that casino operators combine financial-services functions with gambling, which raises their exposure to illicit activity and demands a correspondingly higher standard of oversight.

The bans mark a sharp escalation. Earlier disqualifications imposed on other Star figures rarely exceeded a year. A six- and seven-year ban for the former CEO and risk chief signals that regulators and the court now treat AML governance failures at casinos as personal-liability matters for the executives who run them, not just balance-sheet problems for the company.

The personal penalties arrive while Star Entertainment itself remains close to collapse. AUSTRAC, the federal financial-crime regulator, is pursuing a civil penalty against the operator that the agency has argued should reach AU$400 million, in a case still before the court. Star has told the court that any fine above AU$65 million would render it insolvent, citing roughly AU$78 million in cash against debts exceeding AU$1.1 billion. The company was also fined AU$15 million by the New South Wales Independent Casino Commission following the second Bell inquiry, which found continuing compliance failures at the Sydney casino. A AU$300 million rescue package from Bally's Corporation and pub magnate Bruce Mathieson, agreed in April 2025, delivered an initial AU$100 million tranche but may prove insufficient if the full AUSTRAC penalty is imposed.

SkyCity settles Adelaide

SkyCity Entertainment Group, listed in New Zealand and Australia, and its subsidiary SkyCity Adelaide signed a non-binding heads of agreement with South Australia's Liquor and Gambling Commissioner to resolve all outstanding regulatory matters arising from an independent review released last August. That review found the Adelaide casino suitable to retain its licence but flagged AML and counter-terrorism-financing failings.

Under the terms, SkyCity will pay a AU$21 million fine (about US$14.7 million) in three installments: AU$7 million within 28 days of a binding deed, with the next two installments due at one and two years. The company also committed to a governance overhaul. It will appoint a dedicated SkyCity Adelaide chief executive reporting to the local board, and by 1 January 2028 the Adelaide board must comprise a majority of non-executive directors independent of the New Zealand parent. SkyCity will not be able to delegate Adelaide functions to the parent without the Commissioner's approval. A binding tripartite settlement deed is expected to follow the non-binding agreement.

SkyCity chief executive Jason Walbridge said the agreement "represents an important step for SkyCity and reflects the considerable work undertaken over the past four years to transform the company's compliance culture and strengthen governance."

The Adelaide settlement is the second major financial hit for the property. On 7 June 2024, the Federal Court ordered SkyCity Adelaide to pay AU$67 million for breaches of the AML/CTF Act spanning 7 December 2016 to 14 December 2022, plus AU$3 million in legal costs, in a case also decided by Justice Lee. AUSTRAC had filed joint submissions with the company proposing that figure in May 2024.

How the penalties compare

The Crown Resorts case set the benchmark. In 2023 the Federal Court approved a AU$450 million (US$300 million) settlement with AUSTRAC, split between Crown Melbourne at AU$300 million and Crown Perth at AU$150 million, payable in three installments with AU$125 million due within 28 days. Crown admitted its AML/CTF programs were not based on appropriate risk assessments and lacked adequate board and senior-management oversight. That outcome, alongside the SkyCity and Star matters, has built a consistent record: every major Australian casino operator has now faced a multimillion-dollar AML penalty, and the Star executive bans extend that liability to the individuals who ran the firms.

The contrast in scale also tells operators where the financial-crime regulator and the corporate regulator each draw the line. AUSTRAC has pursued nine-figure company penalties; ASIC, through the Star case, has now pursued multi-year disqualifications and six-figure personal fines for the directors and officers who let controls fail. The same Suncity-linked exposure that surfaced across Crown, Star and others continues to shape enforcement, as do related cross-border cases such as the recent Hong Kong betting-syndicate prosecution.