BILL ANALYSIS                                                                                                                                                                                                    �



                                                                      



           ------------------------------------------------------------ 
          |SENATE RULES COMMITTEE            |                   AB 156|
          |Office of Senate Floor Analyses   |                         |
          |1020 N Street, Suite 524          |                         |
          |(916) 651-1520         Fax: (916) |                         |
          |327-4478                          |                         |
           ------------------------------------------------------------ 
           
                                         
                                 THIRD READING


          Bill No:  AB 156
          Author:   Lara (D)
          Amended:  8/30/11 in Senate
          Vote:     21

           
           SENATE GOVERNMENTAL ORG. COMMITTEE  :  12-0, 6/28/11
          AYES:  Wright, Anderson, Berryhill, Calderon, Cannella, 
            Corbett, De Le�n, Evans, Hernandez, Strickland, Wyland, 
            Yee
          NO VOTE RECORDED:  Padilla
           
          SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE  :  Senate Rule 28.8
           
          ASSEMBLY FLOOR  :  74-0, 5/23/11 - See last page for vote


           SUBJECT  :    Gambling control

           SOURCE  :     Commerce Club Casino


           DIGEST  :    This bill (1) amends the Gambling Control Act to 
          provide an absolute defense to any civil or criminal action 
          if a gambling establishment conducts play of a controlled 
          game that is later deemed unlawful, as specified, (2) 
          directs that, if a purchase contract for the sale of a 
          gambling enterprise does not require the purchaser to honor 
          outstanding gaming chips used by the seller, then the 
          contract shall indicate what provisions have been made for 
          redemption of the chips as of the closing date, (3) 
          requires the seller of a gambling enterprise to satisfy the 
          Gambling Control Commission that the amount of chip 
                                                           CONTINUED





                                                                AB 156
                                                                Page 
          2

          liability, of any, is safeguarded by a surety bond, escrow 
          account or other form of security sufficient to guarantee 
          the availability of funds for the redemption of outstanding 
          gambling chips, (4) requires the seller to give notice to 
          patrons of the gambling enterprise in order to provide an 
          adequate opportunity for redemption of any outstanding 
          gaming chips, and (5) provides that in any enforcement 
          action, the gambling enterprise shall have the burden of 
          proving that the department approved the controlled game 
          and that the game was played in the manner approved.

           Senate Floor Amendments  of 8/30/11 (1) direct that, if a 
          purchase contract for the sale of a gambling enterprise 
          does not require the purchaser to honor outstanding gaming 
          chips used by the seller, then the contract shall indicate 
          what provisions have been made for redemption of the chips 
          as of the closing date, (2) require the seller of a 
          gambling enterprise to satisfy the Gambling Control 
          Commission that the amount of chip liability, of any, is 
          safeguarded by a surety bond, escrow account or other form 
          of security sufficient to guarantee the availability of 
          funds for the redemption of outstanding gambling chips, and 
          (3) require the seller to give notice to patrons of the 
          gambling enterprise in order to provide an adequate 
          opportunity for redemption of any outstanding gaming chips.

           ANALYSIS  :    Existing law:

          1. Establishes the California Gambling Control Commission 
             (Commission), prescribes the requirements for obtaining 
             a gambling license, and defines a gambling establishment 
             or licensed premises for these purposes. 

          2. Provides for the enforcement of those gambling 
             activities by the Bureau of Gambling Control within the 
             Department of Justice (DOJ).

          3. Limits the transfer of property if the Commission must 
             approve or license the transferee, and specifically 
             prohibits a contract for sale or lease of real or 
             personal property that requires approval of the 
             Commission from specifying a closing date earlier than 
             90 days after the submission of the contract to the 
             Commission. 







                                                                AB 156
                                                                Page 
          3


          4. Requires DOJ to approve the play of any controlled game, 
             including, but not limited to, placing restrictions and 
             limitations on how a controlled game is played.

          This bill:

          1. Amends the Gambling Control Act to provide an absolute 
             defense to any civil or criminal action if a gambling 
             establishment conducts play of a controlled game that is 
             later deemed unlawful, as specified.

          2. Directs that, if a purchase contract for the sale of a 
             gambling enterprise does not require the purchaser to 
             honor outstanding gaming chips used by the seller, then 
             the contract shall indicate what provisions have been 
             made for redemption of the chips as of the closing date.

          3. Requires the seller of a gambling enterprise to satisfy 
             the Commission that the amount of chip liability, of 
             any, is safeguarded by a surety bond, escrow account or 
             other form of security sufficient to guarantee the 
             availability of funds for the redemption of outstanding 
             gambling chips.

          4. Requires the seller to give notice to patrons of the 
             gambling enterprise in order to provide an adequate 
             opportunity for redemption of any outstanding gaming 
             chips.

          5. Provides that in any enforcement action, the gambling 
             enterprise shall have the burden of proving that the 
             department approved the controlled game and that the 
             game was played in the manner approved.

           Comments
           
           Background on the absolute defense provisions in this bill  . 
           In 1989 the California Attorney General notified licensed 
          card rooms, which were offering jackpots, of his opinion 
          that jackpot poker was unlawful because it violated 
          California constitutional and Penal Code proscriptions 
          against lotteries.  The letter from the Attorney General 
          advised card room owners and operators that, beginning 







                                                                AB 156
                                                                Page 
          4

          November 1, 1989, the playing of illegal jackpot poker 
          constitutes a violation of the Penal Code, which may result 
          in administrative disciplinary action, as well as possible 
          criminal prosecution.
          Several card rooms sought and obtained an injunction 
          prohibiting state and local officials from continuing to 
          enforce prohibitions against the play of jackpot poker.  
          However, an appellate court overturned the injunction and 
          held that the jackpot feature of the poker game is an 
          illegal lottery, given the predominance of the element of 
          chance in winning a jackpot.  Among other things, the 
          appellate court in  Bell Gardens Bicycle Club v. Department 
          of Justice  held that: 

            "�J]ust because poker itself is legal, this fact does not 
            make the jackpot variation of poker legal, as well? The 
            question in this case is not whether the slim possibility 
            of winning the jackpot money prize transforms the legal 
            game of poker into an illegal lottery.  The question is 
            whether the jackpot feature itself is an illegal lottery 
            as defined by Penal Code section 319 and should be 
            disallowed as an attempt to disguise an illegal game 
            within a legal one...  Based upon the law, as well as a 
            careful and complete reading of the record, it is clear 
            that the jackpot feature and the underlying poker games 
            are completely severable, and that jackpot is an illegal 
            lottery."

          After this ruling, the Attorney General required the card 
          clubs to disgorge the profits illegally received from the 
          conduct of jackpot poker after having received notice from 
          the DOJ to cease playing the game.  It appears that the 
          clubs may have continued to conduct jackpot poker games for 
          approximately a nine-month period following receipt of the 
          notice from the Attorney General he considered jackpot 
          poker unlawful.

           Prior Legislation
           
          SB 1125 (Florez), 2009-10 Session, would have provided that 
          a gambling establishment that conducts play of a controlled 
          game that has been approved by DOJ, but is later found to 
          be unlawful, has an absolute defense to any criminal, 
          administrative, or civil action, so long as the game was 







                                                                AB 156
                                                                Page 
          5

          being played in the manner approved and during the time for 
          which it was approved.  The bill was vetoed by Governor 
          Schwarzenegger.  The veto message read in part:

            "I am unable to sign this bill because, unlike the 
            measure previously mentioned, this bill does not take 
            into account possible misconduct by a gambling 
            establishment that may have induced the Bureau to 
            erroneously approve a controlled game.  In addition, 
            there may be other instances where a gambling 
            establishment may be playing a controlled game in bad 
            faith and in violation of other provisions of existing 
            law.  Notwithstanding the fact that the Bureau may have 
            approved such conduct, that approval alone should not 
            constitute an absolute defense to all civil, criminal, or 
            administration actions."

           FISCAL EFFECT  :    Appropriation:  No   Fiscal Com.:  Yes   
          Local:  No

           SUPPORT  :   (Verified  8/30/11)

          Commerce Club Casino (source)
          Artichoke Joe's Casino
          Bicycle Casino
          Hollywood Park Casino
          Lucky Chances
          Village Club

           ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT  :    The author's office states that 
          this bill will allow the Commission to permit a purchase 
          and sale agreement of real or personal property of a 
          gambling establishment to close earlier than 90 days after 
          submission to the Commission.  

          The author's office states that in the past, the Attorney 
          General brought an administrative action against several 
          card rooms and an appellate court held that the "manner in 
          which jackpot poker was played was unlawful even though it 
          had been earlier approved."  The author's office states 
          further that, after the court ruling, the Attorney General 
          required the clubs to disgorge money they had made; the 
          Commerce Casino had to give almost a million dollars.








                                                                AB 156
                                                                Page 
          6

          The author's office believes that there is minimal 
          protection for card clubs from civil, criminal and 
          administrative action when a game that is approved by DOJ 
          is later found to be operating unlawfully, and that if a 
          card club follows the law and receives approval from DOJ, 
          that they should be able to defend against any enforcement 
          action stemming from the approved game that was 
          subsequently declared to be unlawful. 

          The author's office states that other provisions of this 
          bill clarify that a contract for the sale of a gambling 
          enterprise shall state whether the purchaser will honor any 
          outstanding gaming chips from the sale.


           ASSEMBLY FLOOR  :  74-0, 5/23/11
          AYES:  Achadjian, Alejo, Allen, Ammiano, Atkins, Beall, 
            Bill Berryhill, Block, Blumenfield, Bonilla, Bradford, 
            Brownley, Buchanan, Butler, Charles Calderon, Campos, 
            Carter, Cedillo, Chesbro, Conway, Davis, Dickinson, 
            Feuer, Fletcher, Fong, Fuentes, Furutani, Beth Gaines, 
            Galgiani, Garrick, Gatto, Gordon, Hagman, Halderman, 
            Hall, Harkey, Hayashi, Roger Hern�ndez, Hill, Huber, 
            Hueso, Huffman, Jeffries, Jones, Knight, Lara, Logue, 
            Bonnie Lowenthal, Ma, Mansoor, Mendoza, Miller, Mitchell, 
            Monning, Morrell, Nestande, Nielsen, Norby, Olsen, Pan, 
            Perea, V. Manuel P�rez, Portantino, Silva, Skinner, 
            Smyth, Solorio, Swanson, Torres, Valadao, Wagner, 
            Wieckowski, Williams, John A. P�rez
          NO VOTE RECORDED:  Cook, Donnelly, Eng, Gorell, Grove, 
            Yamada


          PQ:kc  8/30/11   Senate Floor Analyses 

                         SUPPORT/OPPOSITION:  SEE ABOVE

                                ****  END  ****