Hey, there! Log in / Register

Wynn hid $7.5-million settlement with woman he allegedly attacked from state gaming regulators

When the nascent state gaming commission was considering Steve Wynn's company's "suitability" to run the Everett casino it's now building, neither Wynn nor his company disclosed the large settlement, the commission's investigations head said today.

At a meeting of the commission called to discuss Wynn, Karen Wells, director of the commission's investigations and enforcement bureau, said she has confirmed with the Wynn company's attorney that Wynn in fact made the private payment. She said there was no record of the settlement in court records, because no court action was ever brought related to it.

When news broke of the allegations in the Wall Street Journal last week, Wynn had denied all the allegations and blamed his ex-wife for spreading them.

Wells, however, said today that "what we have discovered is that was, in fact, a private agreement; there were steps taken to keep it private; there were no court records at the time for investigators to discover; and that it was not disclosed by any qualifier. Now, whether or not that was appropriate will be looked at as part of this investigation."

Wells and Commission Chairman Stephen Crosby both said regulators will conduct what Wells called "an intense review" into what Crosby called "appalling accusations." The commission could, if it determines Wynn Resorts is no longer "suitable" - whether morally, legally or financially - to run the casino, it could strip its license.

Wells emphasized that even if Wynn himself proves to have been a sexual molester, the ultimate decision is on whether Wynn Resorts, a publicly held corporation, is "suitable." She said one of the avenues of her investigation will be to see how the corporation and its board handles the accusations.

Wells added she will be coordinating her investigation with similar probes announced by gaming regulators in Las Vegas and Macao.

Crosby said that while the investigation involves allegations of sexual assault, he wants as much information found during it to be made public as possible. "The people of Massachusetts have the right to know what the hell happened here," he said.

Neighborhoods: 
Topics: 
Free tagging: 

Ad:

Do you like how UHub is doing? Consider a contribution. Thanks!

Comments

Just ...WOW!

up
Voting closed 0

The state will try to extort something out of Wynn in order to have him keep the license.....or steal his casino.

up
Voting closed 1

Yes, poor Steve Wynn is the true victim here.

up
Voting closed 0

I think bugs was making, is that the state doesn't actually care about the allegations. No?

up
Voting closed 1

If not,he didn't legally do anything criminal. He was civil sued (?) and / or extorted, and 'paid out' because it's often tbe easiest and less expensive route.

I'm not a fan of Steve Wynn and certajnly am not defending rapist.

up
Voting closed 1

scream "i am innocent of these false charges" to you?

also, if you feel compelled to say "I'm not defending a rapist" while making your point, maybe rethink your point.

up
Voting closed 1

No. But it doesn't scream "guilty" either.

Nobody is guilty unless they're proven guilty.

up
Voting closed 0

Harvey Weinstein and Donald Trump in the same manner?

Had it been an attempt at extortion, why not go to the police and say "I'm being extorted"?

up
Voting closed 0

Do you put Harvey Weinstein and Donald Trump in the same category?

up
Voting closed 0

There are alot of categories one might put them in.

up
Voting closed 0

How long has your head been buried in the sand? Come up for air, once in a while.

up
Voting closed 0

Lots of guilty people haven't been proven guilty. They may not be legally guilty, but if they committed the crime, they are literally guilty. Our enlightened society* has decided to consider them innocent until the legal system has done its thing. The actual guilt comes with the commission of the act, not with the legal decision. If I see anon break into a house, I can say "anon is guilty of breaking into that house." If Adam writes the same thing here, he exposes himself to a lawsuit, unless a court has decided that it's true.

* Not sarcasm.

up
Voting closed 0

.

up
Voting closed 0

According to Wikipedia, Wynn's net worth is about $2.5 billion. $7.5 million is about one-third of one percent of his net worth. That doesn't sound like a lot, but it's a much bigger percentage of his annual income. You don't get to be a billionaire by ignoring amounts like that, especially if your fortune is based on casinos, on exploiting the house's percentage. Why do you think Trump chisels people out of insignificant amounts all the time, why he waited till the last moment to pony up a paltry $130K to Stormy Daniels? Of course Wynn is less impulse-driven than Trump, but he knows that if you shell out $7.5 million every time you want to make a nuisance go away, you're going to have a lot of nuisances.Wynn knows how to count costs, and gets value for his money. There's no such thing as "chump change" to a guy like him.

up
Voting closed 0

It's the equivalent of you making $50k a year and someone who accused you of scratching their car. You may or may not have done it, but the guy is asking for $150 bucks to go away. Chump change.

up
Voting closed 0

The point made in the comment you responded to was that net worth and annual income are very different things. Please show your work in your conclusion that 7.5 million is to Wynn's annual as $150 is to $50,000. I'm prepared to believe you, but you need to show your work

up
Voting closed 0

annual income with net worth. Steve Wynn doesn't make $2.5 billion a year.

Personally, my annual income is a lot closer to $50K than to whatever it is that Steve Wynn makes, and I would definitely feel like a chump if I gave $150 to every jerk who demands it.

up
Voting closed 0

If someone makes $50k a year, what do you think their net worth is? $10mm? So, say that person has as net worth of $250k, that's a $750 payment. "Chump change". If someone has a net worth of $75k, $225. "Chump change".

up
Voting closed 0

Does Wynn automatically forfeit the land and the partially-completed building, with the state awarding both to a new bidder?

I disagreed with Somerville Mayor Curtatone at the time he was opposing this development, but maybe he was right after all.

up
Voting closed 0

There will be no shortage of scumbags vying for the opportunity to overpay Wynn for having his twisted ass thrown out of town.

Wynn will soak anyone who will absorb the costs long term of paying him for his troubles and getting the casino and it's license. I'll bet Adelson will put his grubby paws into the mix soon enough. He's got the juice and hasn't seen his dick since the 80's, so there's that. And after Macau, the local pols know he's willing to dole out the grease.

up
Voting closed 0

...so lion in winter, blah blah blah, titan of Vegas and Macao, friend to presidents, blah blah, final act, blah blah, a true homecoming, blah blah blah, true Boston success story, blah blah, the apotheosis of a career...cue the Herald columnist-apologists.

up
Voting closed 0

Why do you regularly talk about men’s dicks on this message board? First it was (and is) Trump every time he does anything at all, and now you’re speaking about Wynn’s.

You never went for that therapy consultation we talked about huh?

up
Voting closed 0

two morons who can't control empires,let alone their own dicks? Hear me talk about anyone else like that?

Oh, and I mentioned Adelson's dick too. Missed that one in your score keeping of dicks?

up
Voting closed 0

I'll add it to the list I give your eventual therapist.

Hang in there, buddy. Life will get better for you someday.

up
Voting closed 1

Just because you don't have a gaming license doesn't mean you have to give up your building and land to the state! What are you smoking?

Unless they strip the company of their hotel licensing they'll have a casinoless resort on the Mystic. Of course, they could stall construction to whatever degree their budgeting and agreements with the contractors and crews allows. It might make the state think twice than have an eyesore of a semi-completed building.

The design is a "Wynn" so I doubt they'd sell it off as-is to another hotel owner...or that there's much interest in having a hotel in that part of Everett. The whole thing could become a huge boondoggle to both Wynn Resorts and the state if they take away the license.

IF there's enough fire where there's smoke, the state could have the leverage to force the board to remove Wynn as CEO to recover their "morality" with the state and put it all on him. But I don't see it. At most, we'll talk big, fine them big, and move on and the Wynn keeps its license and finishes on time.

up
Voting closed 1

Let's see how Mayah Mahty deals with this one! Or Mayah Carlo Bag-O-Donuts? Think Carlo wants to give all that money back? Just because of some dames?

This should also provide loads of entertainment as the local media and useless politicians try to decide who to appease more, the MeToo crowd who have every right to demand this scumbag be booted out of town or those who have so far and will continue to make money, legally and illegally from a pervert's venture.

up
Voting closed 0

It might be the same to you people in Belmont, but the casino is in Everett, not Boston, so my mayor has enough of a say in this as your town manager does.

up
Voting closed 6

If it's any consolation, I was gentrified out of Belmont.

Still waiting to hear what parochial school in East Boston you were in around 1966? Mine was Sacred Heart on Paris Street. It's gone now.

up
Voting closed 1

That's the year my da proposed to my ma.

Still, you gave me an opening with the gratuitous Walsh slam. Sorry Charlie, but Everett ain't a part of Boston, regardless of where you live now.

up
Voting closed 0

Still waiting on that answer to my question..

up
Voting closed 1

Back in the 1960s, when a good Catholic man loved a good Catholic woman, he asked her to marry him. Then, at a time thereafter, they got married. Then, at a time more than nine months later, their first child was born. That would mean that I wasn’t even an embryo back in 1966.

You do grasp the linear aspect of time, right?

up
Voting closed 0

Jeesh.

up
Voting closed 0

"Thank you...so very much"

up
Voting closed 0

This is all politics. Threatening legal action while the spotlight is on the issue, they'll then investigate and do nothing once the spotlight has moved on.

The casino is half built, and they couldn't legally take the land without paying out a large sum.

up
Voting closed 18

They don't have to.
The gaming commission can take away the license to gamble by Wynn. On that site or any other in MA.

Wynn will negotiate and probably transfer the license or face massive loss on the investment.

Looks like he lost his bet that his scumbag background would remain hidden.

up
Voting closed 0

Creeps like Wynn have their slimy tentacles around our state now because of the people who foolishly voted for legalizing gambling. What is the appeal of sending millions of dollars to out of state casino owning criminals?

up
Voting closed 9

The appeal is keeping some of that gaming money here in Massachusetts instead of watching it all fly down I-95 to Connecticut.

up
Voting closed 0

let's legalize all fireworks and firearms too, right?
no point letting all that money go out of state.

lowest common denominator arguments are depressing.

up
Voting closed 1

Firearms are legal.

up
Voting closed 0

are legal in Massachusetts?

ok, good luck with that.

up
Voting closed 0

You didn't say ALL firearms. You said firearms. Firearms are legal in Massachusetts.

up
Voting closed 0

I said "all fireworks and firearms". English syntax does not require the addition of a second "all" in front of "firearms."

up
Voting closed 1

holds for drug money. When you suppress the heroin trade, you drive heroin money out of town.

I mean, it's not a bad argument. It's just not the only argument.

up
Voting closed 0

Heroin is an actual commodity. You give someone money and they give you the item.

Gambling is an event that takes place at a location. You pay someone money, sit down and play the game.

up
Voting closed 0

The appeal is keeping some of that gaming money here in Massachusetts instead of watching it all fly down I-95 to Connecticut.

This doesn't work very well, though, does it? We're talking about tiny states here. In Springfield they're building a casino that is practically on the CT line. In response, one of the casino lashups, I forget if it's Foxwoods or Mohegan Sun, is thinking of building one in Enfield, on the state line, practically spitting distance from the Springfield casino. And there's a limited pool of fools eager to part from their money, and a decreasing pool of money that such fools have to spend. A casino is a gold mine if you're the first one there with no competition for a significant distance, and you probably make out pretty well on the second one. Beyond that, it's got to diminish fast.

up
Voting closed 0

figured that out. 90+ different scratch tickets available just by walking into any convenience store in the state clearly tells me there's got to be a diminishing rate of return.

up
Voting closed 0

When they can just give the state of Massachusetts the money for scratch tickets that become the bane of existence for anyone who has to sweep up a convenience store parking lot?

up
Voting closed 0

Creeps like Wynn have their slimy tentacles around our state because the Democrat nannies who keep winning re-election decided that we were going to have a fixed, finite number of licenses. Who did you or anybody believe would come out the winner in those circumstances: The cleanest casino operator in the business, or a dirty one?

up
Voting closed 0

So you think that if the state allowed unlimited casinos, the most upright and honest people would end up running them?

up
Voting closed 1

That's a relative term.

Whom would you rather have facilitating a public poker or blackjack game for you: Me, or Steve Wynn?

up
Voting closed 0

At the very least, he made something of himself.

up
Voting closed 2

You're sleeping with me now? What do you care?

I balance work, travel, and family at a satisfactory level, and I have money. I'm good. You?

up
Voting closed 0

I answered.

up
Voting closed 0

That "made something of himself" is your criteria for choosing which poker game you would like to play in. Weird, man.

You see: I'll open my own casino. I'll get Robert Goulet to perform in my treehouse.

up
Voting closed 1

...that would have to be Robert Ghoul-et.

(I'd totally go to Bart's Casino before Burn's!)

up
Voting closed 0

I'd rather not participate with either of you.

Here's the reasoning behind the implicit assertion of my last question:

-Running rigged gambling games (and they're all rigged, in one way or another) to take money from suckers is highly immoral behavior.
-If a person is running gambling games they are ipso facto not an honest and upright person.
-A dishonest and crooked person is likely to engage in other highly immoral and dishonest behavior.
-If fewer people are running gambling games, more attention can be focused on them, reducing the likelihood they will get away with concomitant crimes.

I expect you're likely to respond with some Randian jibber-jab about the invisible hand of the market taking care of all the superfluous dishonesty, but the invisible hand doesn't work well with broken thumbs.

up
Voting closed 0

They already rejected other casinos for having some blood on their hands. Now that this is coming out, well, we will see. I imagine this will not be a great outcome for Steve Wynn.

up
Voting closed 1

Of the many ways Wynn deceived the state's Gaming Commission during this whole ordeal.
From job promises that have been scaled downward to an arena that has already been scrapped from the plans. Oh, and don't forget about the fact that the head of the Mafia owned the land Wynn is building on and has profited from it. Google Charles Lightbody. Oh, is he the head of the (now obviously fake) No Eastie Casino? You bet.
This whole gambling process was ... fixed from the start. Should've awarded the license to the other guys.

up
Voting closed 0

$7.5 million settlement with a manicurist.

That's quite a payout.

up
Voting closed 0

Just the guy for the job.

up
Voting closed 1

"The people of Massachusetts have the right to know what the hell happened here," he said.

Really. And why is that? Two private individuals got into some sort of altercation and came to a private agreement that, between the two individuals, was acceptable as a settlement. Why is this anyone else's business at all?

up
Voting closed 1

Because the law says so.

The Bureau and commission shall deny an application for a key gaming employee license,
gaming employee license or gaming vendor license, if the applicant:
(a) has been convicted of a felony or other crime involving embezzlement, theft, fraud or
perjury; except that for such disqualifying convictions under M.G.L. c. 23K, § 16 and
205 CMR 134.10(3)(a) which occurred before the ten-year period immediately preceding
submission of the application for licensure, the Bureau may, in its discretion, approve the
issuance of a gaming employee license to an applicant who affirmatively demonstrates
rehabilitation in accordance with 205 CMR 134.10(4);
(b) submitted an application for a license under M.G.L. c. 23K, § 30 and 205 CMR 134.00
that willfully, knowingly or intentionally contains false or misleading information;
(c) committed prior acts which have not been prosecuted or in which the applicant was not
convicted but form a pattern of misconduct that makes the applicant unsuitable for a license

If he paid off people who were sexually assaulted as a means of keeping the case out of court and did so in a willingful pattern of abuse of his employees, then he's not suitable for a license and not only does the company need a license, but all executive level employees and other employees who could influence the fairness of the games if they are corrupt/immoral people have to have an employee license to run the place or else the whole house of cards falls down.

This reduces the risk that the entire casino is a criminal enterprise looking to rip off the state's citizens by paying off the right people to ignore fairness in gaming or break kneecaps of people who have won big so they don't come back or give the money back, etc. If he's willing to abuse an employee and pay her to go away, then is he willing to make an employee cheat a game and then pay them to make it go away?

up
Voting closed 0