Effective forensics are key to successful resolution of gaming floor disputes says BMM Compliance
The inner workings of casino slot machines rarely make the headlines of the general press. When they do, it’s usually related to an unusually large jackpot, or because the jackpot was won in unusual circumstances.
A self-proclaimed billionaire from Mainland China hit the headlines after winning HK$5 million (US$640,000) on a slot machine at Wynn Macau—reportedly the second highest jackpot payout ever made by a Macau-based machine. That was newsworthy in its own right. It turned out though that the lady concerned wasn’t entirely satisfied. She complained she had spent more than ten times that amount—US$6.8 million—on chasing a big Macau jackpot in the previous two years and according to local media reports threatened to sue the casino, claiming the payout rates on its machines were too low.
Such high profile disputes between players and operators are extremely rare, but lower level niggles can happen in any casino on any machine from time to time. In all cases, a successful resolution depends on high quality and methodical forensic procedures to track back through every interaction between player and machine, machine and service engineer and machine and management system, says BMM Compliance, a leading global provider of compliance and testing services to the gaming sector.
In the case of the disgruntled lady patron, BMM says it’s worth pointing out that before any gaming product is allowed on a casino floor it is evaluated by an authorised gaming test laboratory. This is to verify that it performs in compliance with the rules enforced by the local regulatory body. Where a patron makes claims about the overall performance of a game, a full history of the game has to be evaluated to determine if the random number generator and game play are in compliance with technical expectations at the time the game payout percentage was first calculated. In all forensic evaluations, one key goal is to examine the evidence and determine whether the game has performed in a manner consistent with the documented test results.
Secure the scene
“Just like a police forensic investigation, it’s very important that the operator restricts physical access to the area of the gaming floor where an incident or alleged incident occurred,” says Moosad Sreedharan, BMM’s Senior Vice President Technical Compliance.
“The only people who should have access are those who have authority under predetermined forensic procedures,” adds Mr Sreedharan.
The advantage of clear procedures, he says, is to enable operators to gather evidence of sufficient standard that it can withstand scrutiny by lawyers in the event of any litigation linked to the event.
Limit access
Depending on the departmental structures within the casino’s management, those authorised to have access to the scene would usually be from slot operations and security under the direction of the regulatory authority. A representative of the regulator and a person who has detailed knowledge of the gaming equipment in question will attend as the impartial witness. “It is extremely important to collect as much information as possible from the equipment under investigation from the gaming floor since a lot of evidence may be lost once the equipment is power cycled and moved to a laboratory for further detailed analysis” says Mr Sreedharan.
“An independent witness is very important with this kind of investigation, especially for high value disputes,” he adds.
Alert surveillance
“The first responder to the scene should immediately notify surveillance to monitor the area of activity from several angles. That should happen even before the area is secured,” explains Mr Sreedharan.
Surveillance should also gather together all CCTV or other relevant recordings that covered that area of the casino floor leading up to the time of the incident. The slot operations group, in conjunction with the security team, would also be expected to secure the game in question without disturbing any current status of the gaming equipment in question and secure it such that it cannot be operated by anyone other than the professional investigators.
Use the right expert
To ensure the integrity of the game software and game configurations, a trained representative from the regulatory authority with detailed knowledge of the game software and hardware would normally be the most appropriate lead person to gather evidence from the exterior and interior of the machine, says Mr Sreedharan.
This process should consist of taking still photographs and/or video recordings of the game exterior, including any relevant screen shots, reel positions, meter readings, last game recall information, program data, configuration settings, error logs, communication logs, other information logs within the gaming equipment and ancillary equipment settings. Details of the visual evidence should also be written down so that it can be easily accessed by anyone writing a report on the incident. Anyone making notes at the scene should have their work reviewed by a colleague before the investigation moves to the next stage, states Mr Sreedharan.
Look for abnormalities
“It’s especially good practice to document anything that may seem out of place or abnormal,” he explains.
“It never hurts as well to have more than one person checking the screens and the gaming device as a whole just to make sure the proper information is being recorded,” he adds. Only once all the exterior information has been noted should the response team move to the next phase—inspecting the inside of the machine.
Protect interior evidence
Investigation of the interior of the game cabinet and its electronics is normally the most critical step in the investigative process, says Mr Sreedharan. Only properly trained people should be involved in this phase, to reduce the risk of physical evidence or data evidence being corrupted.
Another key step is to keep a record of all personnel involved in the investigation.
“Securing evidence can be a slow and painstaking process so you need to make sure case reviews are done with the whole team present so that no detail is overlooked,” he says.
Consult IT
In most casinos the games on the floor are all communicating with a back-end system or systems depending on the size and complexity of the operation. Investigators can get vital help from the casino’s information technology experts by asking them to obtain all the system data for the game in question.
Information related to the last time the game door was opened and the last time the game stopped communicating with the management system may be especially relevant. Records of authorised and unauthorised entries can also be obtained (e.g., whether the door open ‘event’ was preceded by the insertion of an authorised employee card). In any case the system data may be able to identify exactly what happened at the time of the game malfunction. Investigators should also try to take statements from patrons who were near the area of the incident. They may prove to be important witnesses.
Take pictures
Above all, take plenty of relevant photographic evidence, says Mr Sreedharan. “The phrase ‘a picture’s worth a thousand words’ is especially true on forensic investigations,” he states.
Some of the key areas that should be recorded photographically are:
- • game screen information (pay line patterns, current credits on game, credits wagered, amount of pay lines played, etc);
- • photos of help screens, pay tables, and all relevant information displayed on-screen that would be visible to patrons (i.e., excluding information accessed via the attendant menu);
- • photos of the cabinet, specifically of any areas that show evidence of tampering;
- • photos of all the error, communication and other logs available within the gaming equipment;
- • photos of the patron who reported the disputed transaction, as well as patrons who were in and around the relevant part of the casino floor at the relevant time.
Test labs have a role
Depending on the size of the disputed award, the operator and/or regulatory body may want to have the entire forensic investigation conducted by an independent testing lab such as BMM Compliance for an impartial third party opinion.
“In those cases the use of clear and effective procedures at the preliminary stage of the investigation really comes into its own,” says Mr Sreedharan.
“It means that there should be a good fit between the standards of the in-house investigation and the standards of the independent testing laboratory. As a result, information of reliable evidential value can be passed from one team to the other.”
Hope for the best but prepare for the worst is probably a useful motto for any casino operator in today’s litigation-minded society. For more information on forensic dispute investigation, or specifically on BMM Compliance’s services, visit the company’s booth at G2E Asia.
BMM Compliance: Booth # 1613
G2E Asia 2009, Cotai Strip® CotaiExpo™, The Venetian Macao 3rd-4th June.
