In the space of a few minutes, James Packer and Crown Resorts learnt their chances of hanging on to to the Sydney casino licence hangs by a thread.

Perhaps this gives Crown a fighting chance; its lawyers will make their own closing submissions in coming weeks.
But the road to retaining the licence looks long and hard.
Bell didnt miss Packer either, telling Bergin that a common theme in the disastrous arrests of Crowns staff in China in 2016, and the decision to sell part of his Crown stake to Macau casino giant Melco, which resulted in the inquiry being called, was the deleterious impact on the good governance of Crown Resorts caused by Packer and his private company, Consolidated Press Holdings.
The adverse impact of CPH in compromising the reporting lines of Crown Resorts was a factor leading to the China arrests, Bell said.
In those instances, the adverse influence of CPH and Mr Packer … was ultimately harmful for the public interest, which is the primary interest of the Casino Control Act.
Packer finished his evidence at the inquiry last month telling Bergin she would likely need to consider caps on the size of shareholdings in Crown a sign he was prepared to see his stake capped in some way.
But the billionaires bigger worry, given Bells scathing comments about his role in the disastrous failures of risk management at Crown, is that he too could be declared unsuitable to be a close associate of the licence holder.
Will Packer need to sell his entire stake if Crown is to have any hope of keeping its Sydney licence?
Bells submissions on Wednesday focused on the events in the lead-up to the arrest of Crowns China team in October 2016. It was illustrative of the way Packers ambition for Crown was magnified by the failure of the groups executives to manage what was clearly a very risky situation.
Bell explained how Crowns push to recruit VIP gamblers in China in around 2013 had stepped up after winning the licence to build its VIP-only casino in Sydney.
Packer and CPH has been closely involved in the push, with CPH executive and Crown director Michael Johnson sitting in on VIP working groups that decided to double down on an aggressive recruitment drive that saw Crowns staff in China pressured and incentivised to deliver results.
Gambling, and the promotion of gambling, is illegal in China, so Crown did the right thing and got local advice. But Bell submitted that Crown didnt follow vital parts of the advice (particularly a recommendation to formally register its activities in China), and didnt in any way check or test the advice.
Bell submitted that the way Crown operated in China placed its staff in grave danger. But he also said the Crown executive in charge of the international VIP business, Barry Felstead, had failed without justifiable reason to alert the board or its risk management committee to a series of warning signs that Crowns China staff could be at risk of being arrested.
Bell submitted that Felstead did tell Johnston about these warning signs, in Johnstons dual roles as a member of the VIP working group and as a member of the Crown board.
Johnstons evidence to the inquiry was that in August 2015 he told the board about the arrest of staff from a South Korean casino operator, but Bell told Bergin she should not accept this evidence, given Johnstons warning was not recorded in the boards minutes, and apparent only some members were informed and informed in a way that assuaged any concern.
Bells submission was that Johnston had failed without justifiable reason to inform the board of the real risks faced by Crowns Chinese staff and said the blurred reporting lines between Crown and CPH with Johnston playing multiple roles had only made things worse.
Bell then took aim at Packers evidence that none of his loyal lieutenants had informed him of the rising risks in China.
That in itself is extraordinary, Bergin interjected, pointing out CPH executives were regularly in touch with Packer on VIP matters.
Perhaps it was the case that Mr Packers powerful personality meant that the management of Crown Resorts didnt want to bring bad news to his attention, Bell said.
Its either that, or the evidence of Mr Packer cant be accepted.
Bell ended the day where he started it. We submit that the saga of the Chinese arrests can only lead to a conclusion of unsuitability.