The ongoing saga surrounding Andy Sanborn’s Concord Casino took a significant turn last Friday when the New Hampshire Attorney General’s Office announced its refusal to permit the resumption of charitable gaming at the venue. This decision hinges on Sanborn’s pending sale of the casino, which has become a focal point in a complex legal battle marked by allegations of pandemic aid fraud and significant implications for state revenue.
The Context of the Decision
The Attorney General’s stance effectively ends the state’s nearly two-year attempt to rid the charitable gaming landscape of Sanborn, amidst accusations that he misappropriated $844,000 in pandemic relief funds. Should this resolution persist, it would not only strip the Concord Casino of vital operations but also curtail a potential revenue source for public education in New Hampshire, which generally receives a share of casino earnings.
Sanborn, under scrutiny for months, has been in search of a buyer since the state mandated the closure and sale of his casino last December. This order followed allegations of fraud involving pandemic aid, and while the deadline for selling the property has been extended several times, it now looms near, possibly within the next few weeks.
The Legal Battle Heats Up
Amidst this tumult, the state is pursuing felony theft charges against Sanborn and his casino regarding the alleged misappropriation of pandemic aid. The inquiry has raised concerns not just about Sanborn’s actions, but also about the integrity of the gaming operation itself.
In a recent hearing, neither the Attorney General’s Office nor Sanborn’s legal representatives provided clarity on the state’s licensing verdict. However, Sanborn’s attorneys expressed frustration, indicating that the state’s concerns about the buyer — who remains undisclosed — appeared to be unfounded. Adam Katz, one of Sanborn’s attorneys, stated that there were “no criticisms of the buyer’s background” or credentials, labeling the buyer as “spotless” in the eyes of the state.
The State’s Position: Transparency or Control?
The narrative from the Attorney General’s Office, represented by Senior Assistant Attorney General Jessica King, counters the defense proposed by Sanborn’s legal team. King emphasized that it is false to assert that the state aims to obstruct the sale. She reiterated that the New Hampshire Lottery Commission has engaged extensively with the potential buyer, ensuring they are provided with necessary resources for a suitable determination.
This back-and-forth raises questions about the transparency and motivations behind the state’s licensing action. Katz suggested that the issue might stem from financing concerns related to the sale, not the character of the buyer, indicating a possibility of deeper concerns about the casino’s operation and future.
Kafkaesque Proceedings and Allegations of Punishment
The legal skirmishes between Sanborn’s team and the state have escalated over the past year, with Katz alluding to a “Kafkaesque” scenario where the state’s actions seem systematically designed to punish Sanborn. He argued that not only is the decision to block charitable gaming detrimental to the potential buyer, but it also stands to harm public interests by limiting educational funding through casino revenues.
In contrast, the Attorney General’s Office continues to frame their actions as prudent regulatory measures intended to ensure that charitable gaming proceeds only from financially sound and legally compliant operations.
The Implications Moving Forward
With the stakes as high as they are, the future of the Concord Casino, its sale, and the broader implications for charitable gaming in New Hampshire remain uncertain. As the legal proceedings continue, both sides are poised for what promises to be a long and contentious battle.
The outcomes of this dispute could redefine not only Sanborn’s business interests but also the landscape of charitable gaming across the state. As New Hampshire navigates these turbulent waters, the focus will likely remain on the delicate balance between regulatory oversight and the potential for revenue-generating gaming operations, which play a vital role in funding public education and other critical services.
In summary, this case embodies the intersection of legal, financial, and ethical considerations in the context of pandemic aid, the gaming industry, and state governance. The eventual resolution promises to have lasting effects on all stakeholders involved, making it a situation to watch closely as it unfolds.
