Statutes, codes, and regulations
New Jersey Administrative Code
Title 13 - LAW AND PUBLIC SAFETYChapter 69B - HEARINGS
Subchapter 2 - CONDUCT OF CONTESTED CASES
Section 13:69B-2.8 - Burden of proof

N.J. Admin. Code § 13:69B-2.8

Download
PDF
Current through Register Vol. 57, No. 1, January 6, 2025
Section 13:69B-2.8 - Burden of proof
(a) The Division shall have the affirmative obligation to establish by a preponderance of the evidence violations of the Act or disqualification pursuant to N.J.S.A. 5:12-86.
(b) The Division shall have the affirmative obligation to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that a candidate for exclusion satisfies the criteria for exclusion set forth in N.J.S.A. 5:12-71 and N.J.A.C. 13:69G-1.3. In a hearing pursuant to N.J.A.C. 13:69G-1.8, the excluded person shall have the affirmative obligation to show cause why he or she should be removed from the list.
(c) Matters pertaining to candidates for preliminary exclusion shall be handled in accordance with N.J.S.A. 5:12-71, N.J.A.C. 13:69G-1.5A and N.J.A.C. 13:69B-4.1 and 4.2.
(d) An applicant or respondent shall have the affirmative obligation to establish by clear and convincing evidence affirmative qualification for licensure.
(e) An applicant or respondent shall have the affirmative obligation to establish by clear and convincing evidence rehabilitation in accordance with N.J.S.A. 5:12-91d.
(f) The Division, in a hearing seeking forfeiture, shall have the affirmative obligation to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the respondent is a prohibited person as defined in N.J.A.C. 13:69G-3.1 and was engaged in a gaming transaction. Any winnings or other things of value resulting from a gaming transaction that are not claimed within six months of the date of the transaction shall be presumed to have been won by a prohibited person who has waived his or her right to a hearing. There shall be a rebuttable presumption that the winnings or things of value seized from the respondent were obtained from engaging in a gaming transaction and therefore subject to forfeiture. In order for the respondent to rebut this presumption the respondent shall have the affirmative obligation to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the winnings or things of value, or any portion thereof, were not obtained from engaging in a gaming transaction.

N.J. Admin. Code § 13:69B-2.8