Subscribe
Business

Star says it can survive its $260 million money-laundering penalty

The casino operator says it can pay the Federal Court penalty over four instalments, after arguing anything above $100 million could force it into liquidation.

3 min read
A harbourside casino and hotel complex in Pyrmont, Sydney, at dusk
Digitally illustrated image.

TLDR

The Star Entertainment Group has accepted a $260 million penalty for breaching anti-money laundering laws and says paying it will not threaten its survival, a reversal from its warning in court that a penalty above $100 million could push it into liquidation. Its shares rose about 7.7 per cent.

KEY TAKEAWAYS

01The Federal Court ordered Star to pay $260 million on Wednesday for anti-money laundering breaches, in four instalments over 19 months.
02AUSTRAC had sought $400 million; Star argued for $100 million and said more could force it into liquidation.
03On Thursday Star said it accepted the penalty and did not expect it to affect its ability to continue as a going concern.
04The penalty is a review event under Star's loan facility with WhiteHawk Capital Partners, which Star says it expects to remain available.
05Star shares rose about 7.7 per cent on Thursday.

The Star Entertainment Group says it can pay a $260 million penalty for breaching anti-money laundering laws, a day after a Federal Court judge imposed a sum well above the $100 million the casino operator had warned could force it into liquidation.[1][2]

Star told the ASX on Thursday that it accepted the penalty and did not expect the payments to affect its ability to continue as a going concern. The penalty is materially in line with the provision in its 2026 financial statements, it said.[2] Its shares rose about 7.7 per cent.[3]

A penalty between the two bids

Justice Cameron Moore said Star's $100 million figure was too low and AUSTRAC's $400 million was too high, and that he had weighed the need for deterrence against the company's finances. "The contraventions are serious, and a significant penalty is warranted," he said. He ordered $195 million be attributed to conduct in Sydney and $65 million to Queensland, payable in four instalments over 19 months.[1]

AUSTRAC sued Star in 2022 over its dealings with the Asian junket operator Suncity and its funder, which it continued despite reports of criminal links. Justice Moore said turning a blind eye to high-risk customers had been a "significant part of Star's business". "They were not mere oversights from time to time," he said.[1] AUSTRAC chief executive Brendan Thomas said the court found Star "put profit over compliance on a large scale".[1]

The lender has a say

The size and terms of the penalty are a review event under Star's credit facility with WhiteHawk Capital Partners. Star said it was talking to the lender and was confident the facility would remain available.[2] Chairman Soo Kim said current owners and management were not involved in the conduct.[2]

Star was rescued from administration in April 2025 by a $300 million package from US casino group Bally's and the Mathieson family.[1] Swinburne University governance expert Helen Bird had said attention would turn quickly to whether it could pay, and suggested Star may have quietly arranged funding while warning of liquidation to win a smaller penalty.[1]

FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS

How much was Star fined?
The Federal Court ordered The Star Entertainment Group to pay a $260 million civil penalty for breaching anti-money laundering and counter-terrorism financing laws, payable in four instalments over 19 months.
Can Star afford the penalty?
Star says it does not expect the payments to affect its ability to continue as a going concern and that the penalty is materially in line with the provision in its 2026 accounts.
What did AUSTRAC seek?
AUSTRAC sought $400 million. Star argued for $100 million and said a larger penalty could force it into liquidation.
Why was Star penalised?
The court found Star failed to manage money laundering risks from dealings with the Suncity junket and its funder and allowed high-risk customers to gamble without properly establishing where their money came from.
Related topics
What's your reaction?

Make us a preferred source on Google

Tap once and our reporting shows at the top of your Google search results and AI answers. You can change this at any time.

Add as a preferred source on Google
Subscribe — it's free