§ 12556. Factors in Mitigation or Aggravation of Penalty.

Factors in mitigation may reduce a minimum penalty of suspension listed in this chapter, either in number of days suspended and/or in the proposal to stay a suspension for a period of probation and the payment of any monetary penalty. Factors in aggravation may increase a penalty or be taken into consideration in determining whether or not to allow a suspension to be stayed upon payment of a monetary penalty. If presented by complainant or respondent, the Commission shall consider the following factors in mitigation or aggravation of the penalty imposed:

(a) Violation of any previously imposed or agreed upon condition, restriction or directive.

(b) Whether or not the conduct was knowing, willful, reckless, or inadvertent.

(c) The extent to which respondent cooperated with the Bureau or Commission during the investigation of the violation.

(d) The extent to which respondent was honest with the Bureau or Commission during the investigation of the violation.

(e) The extent to which respondent is willing to reimburse or otherwise make whole any person who has suffered a loss due to the violation.

(f) Whether respondent has initiated remedial measures to prevent similar violations.

(g) The extent to which respondent realized an economic gain from the violation.

(h) Disciplinary history of respondent, repeated offenses of the same or similar nature, or evidence that the unlawful act was part of a pattern or practice, including the frequency or duration of any pattern or practice which violates applicable law.

(i) Any other aggravating factors, including any factors which the Commission determines to bear on the health, safety, or welfare of the public.

(j) The extent to which there was actual or potential harm to the public or to any patron.

(k) The extent to which an owner licensee or key employee of a gambling establishment, owner or supervisor of a third-party provider of proposition player services, or owner or supervisor of a gambling business exercised due diligence in management or supervision.

(l) If the violation was caused by an employee of a third-party provider of proposition player services or gambling business, the extent to which the owner licensee, licensee, or registrant knew or should have known of the employee's improper conduct; the level of authority of the employee involved and the extent to which the employee acted within the scope of his or her authority in committing the violation.

(m) If the violation was caused by a third-party provider of proposition player services or gambling business, the extent to which the owner licensee or gambling establishment knew or should have known of the improper conduct.

(n) If the violation was caused by an independent contractor of a gambling business, the extent to which the gambling business owner licensee, licensee, or registrant knew or should have known of the independent contractor's improper conduct; the level of authority of the independent contractor involved and the extent to which the independent contractor acted within the scope of his or her authority in committing the violation.

(o) If the violation was caused or committed by a third party, the extent to which the owner licensee, licensee, or registrant knew or should have known of the third party's improper conduct.

(p) Any relevant evidence offered by respondent in mitigation of the violation.

HISTORY

1. New section filed 2-8-2007; operative 3-10-2007 (Register 2007, No. 6).

2. Change without regulatory effect amending subsections (c)-(d) filed 8-8-2008 pursuant to section 100, title 1, California Code of Regulations (Register 2008, No. 32).

Note

Note: Authority: Sections 19825, 19840 and 19930, Business and Professions Code. Reference: Sections 19825, 19920, 19930 and 19984, Business and Professions Code.