Guilt by association to a budding business??
Nevada Gaming Partners owner Bruce Familian says he was “blindsided” to learn that his wife’s part ownership of a would-be medical marijuana facility may put some of his own business in jeopardy.??
Familian told the Las Vegas Review-Journal last week that several customers along his slot machine route have been told by state gaming agents to find another route operator. And it’s all because his wife Sarah owns 8 percent of GB Sciences Nevada LLC. The company won one of 18 medical marijuana dispensary licenses issued by the Clark County Commission in June.
??“Right now, I’m in damage control,” said Familian. He added that the ruling, which has yet to be approved by the Nevada Gaming Commission, took him “by complete surprise.”
??Familian was the original stakeholder in GB Sciences, but his wife bought him out in May, after gaming officials warned the gaming industry to stay out of the medical marijuana business. Familian said the Control Board’s original warning never addressed ownership in medical marijuana by family members of gaming licensees.??“
Our only connection is that we’re married and we have a child together,” he said of his wife. “Our money is separate.”??
But Gaming Control Board Chairman A.G. Burnett said the agency wants a bright line between the holders of gaming licenses and medical marijuana licenses.
??“Our notice reaffirms what federal law clearly states,” Burnett told the Review-Journal. “Regardless of whatever legal measures are taken to separate the finances and businesses between spouses, the fact remains that a licensee would be married to an intentional violator of federal criminal law.” Though some states are moving to legalize pot, it is still illegal under federal law.??
“In this instance, a restricted applicant was approved for its gaming devices but a warning was issued to them not to utilize a slot route operator whose wife wishes to engage in what amounts to a federal violation,” Burnett said.
??Familian said neither he nor his wife have broken any laws. In a statement, he said the ruling “led to serious consequences for my business.”
??“I had no idea that they were going to make a de facto determination of unsuitability on July 9 without providing me an opportunity to respond or make remedy,” Familian said. “Nevada Gaming Partners believes that the ad hoc decision made during a hearing for another proposed licensee was damaging to Nevada Gaming Partners.”
