The Adventures of MDawg II

I got the transcript of the April 23, 2026 hearing where these new regulations were adopted, but it doesn't answer the question.

What it does establish is that the wording of (i) was deliberate. Deputy AG Somps specifically corrected it to read “a negotiable instrument made payable to the patron,”

“I do want to correct a typo that's contained in Regulation 5.0472I where the word ‘payment’ is located or currently written. That should be replaced with the word ‘payable,’ so that entire provision would read, ‘a negotiable instrument made payable to the patron.’”

and the Commission then adopted that exact language.

So immediately before adoption, the draft apparently read:
“a negotiable instrument made payment to the patron”
which is grammatically nonsensical. He characterized the change as a typo correction, not a substantive change in the meaning of (i).

But there is a separate and much more interesting drafting change I mentioned above: the earlier February 5 version apparently used:
“a government or employer issued negotiable instrument”

whereas the final version became:
(h) A government entity; or
(i) A negotiable instrument made payable to the patron.

That is the substantive evolution worth investigating. The April 23 transcript only explains payment → payable; it does not explain why the earlier issuer-based limitation (“government or employer issued”) became the much broader-looking payee-based language (“made payable to the patron”).

And nothing says who must purchase the instrument, who must be the remitter, or that it must be funded from the patron's personal account.

So, as written, an LLC cashier's check made payable to ME and endorsed by me to the casino appears to fall within (i).

Whether Gaming intended that result is another matter. The transcript doesn't say.