Board opposes motion in slot rigging case

Tuesday, May 14, 1996 | 11:59 a.m.

CARSON CITY -- The State Gaming Control Board says Frank Romano must live by the deal he made six years ago when he surrendered his license and agreed to a $275,000 fine for his part in a slot machine rigging caper in Las Vegas.

The board filed its opposition Friday to Romano's motion seeking return of the money paid to the state plus reinstatement of his license. Romano says new evidence shows he never knew about the scheme involving his partners at American Coin Machine Co.

The board said the additional evidence shows Romano did not know about skimming carried out by his partners, Rudolph LaVecchia and his son, Rudolph LaVecchia.

But there is no evidence, the board said, that shows Romano was unaware the company had rigged the computer in the slot machines to limit payouts at about 60 businesses in Clark County.

The LaVecchias and Romano were partners in American Coin Enterprises Co. and American Coin Machine Co., which had a slot route operator license. In the summer of 1989, state agents discovered computers on the machines had been fixed since 1986 so players could not hit the big payouts.

Romano signed a stipulation that he would pay the fine and surrender his license. The LaVecchias agreed to pay $362,500 and to have their licenses revoked.

The coin companies filed for bankruptcy in 1989 and Romano and his wife, Maria, filed a Chapter 11 bankruptcy petition in 1991. The Romanos also filed a suit against the LaVecchias in Bankruptcy Court and won an $8 million judgment.

It was in Bankruptcy Court, Romano says, that he discovered the LaVecchias were the ones who fixed the computers and then kept a double set of books to hide their skimming.

The Romanos also filed suit against the state agency in Bankruptcy Court, seeking the return of the fine money. But they lost.

Romano is now asking that the stipulation he signed in 1989 be declared void by the Nevada Gaming Commission.

But the Control Board, represented by Deputy Attorney General Charlotte Matanane, said Romano had 10 days after the stipulation was signed to ask for a rehearing and he failed to meet that deadline.

The stipulation is like a contract and can't be altered just because one side wants to pull out, Matanane said.

She said that Romano "has now concluded he made a bad bargain with the board and that the stipulation is unfair because it has caused him great hardship."

Romano, said Matanane, knew what he was doing. She said Romano had a chance in 1989 to pursue a hearing and gather additional evidence but he decided to settle the case.

While Romano proclaimed his innocence after the rigged slots were found, the board says it has evidence that would lead to a different conclusion. The board said there has been no showing that fraud was involved in the stipulation.

If the commission agreed to void the 1989 stipulation, the board could reinstate a complaint against Romano. But the board said it would be at a disadvantage. Two of the board members who brought the complaint are gone, the lead deputy attorney general prosecuting the case has left the office and numerous agents who worked on the case have departed for other jobs.

"There is no way for the board to be placed back in the status quo," Matanane said. "Furthermore, Romano will have received an unfair advantage by having the benefit of the trial before the Bankruptcy Court.

"It is because of these reasons that stipulations, like contracts, must be unimpeachable except in rare circumstances. This is not one of those circumstances."