Table Controls at Bellagio Casino Resort

2106 Words Jul 26th, 2013 9 Pages
Controls at the Bellagio Casino Resort

Purpose of Case
The Controls at the Bellagio Casino Resort case was designed with several purposes in mind.
First, it illustrates a control system that is dominated by action and personnel controls, rather than results controls. The analysis of this system leads to insights about some of the factors that limit the feasibility of results controls.
Second, the case can lead into a discussion of what is meant by the term “tight control.” The case presents an excellent example of the application of tight action controls in the table games areas of the casino.
Finally, the case can lead into a discussion of the meaning of what auditors refer to as “internal control,” which is a subset of the
…show more content…
Another problem that casinos face is “skimming.” Skimming means that money is taken from the casino, such as cash from the cage or counting room often requiring cover through forged documentation and changed audit trails. This problem can be used to lead into a discussion of internal control and the ways in which cash is controlled in the casino. The two major purposes of internal controls are (1) to safeguard assets and (2) to ensure reliability of the financial records. In the area of cash, the casino maintains imprest cash balances to safeguard the cash and chips; this means assigning individual responsibility for a certain amount of money. And they have elaborate procedures to ensure that the financial records are reliable (e.g., multiple approvals of transactions, checking of audit trails, multiple reconciliations, and trend analyses), some of which are described in great detail in the case.
Do these procedures prevent skimming? The answer is a tentative yes. The controls are effective against skimming unless collusion is involved, which is a frequent limitation to internal controls. Weakness of Results Controls
Assignment Question 2,
. Results controls are simply not feasible for control over the dealers because results are not measured until the 24-hour drop procedure is complete, and during that period more than one dealer has worked at a table. It would be possible to measure dealer productivity by keeping track of deals per hour,
Open Document