MA services Under Scrutiny: Casino Ban, Tax Probes, and Government Contracts in Question
A widening scandal engulfs security giant MA Services, as investigations into alleged tax evasion, worker exploitation, and links to organized crime prompt major clients to reassess their relationships with the firm, even as the Victorian government continues to list it as an approved supplier.
The fallout began to accelerate after Crown Resorts banned high-roller gambler and MA Services founder, Ahuja, from its Melbourne casino following a lavish 2023 wedding attended by 450 guests. This ban coincided with law enforcement and Australian Taxation Office investigations – and recent allegations regarding his personal conduct – has led several organizations to distance themselves from MA Services. Geelong Grammar is poised to terminate its security contract with the company after initiating a review on November 28th.
Other major corporations are conducting internal investigations.Bunnings confirmed it is “actively gathering more information” following recent developments, while Amazon and Coles have also launched inquiries.A spokesperson for the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission stated the organization is “aware of the allegations” and is monitoring the situation alongside other Commonwealth agencies.
the Australian Criminal Intelligence commission and the NDIS Commission declined to comment on their contractual arrangements with MA Services. The AFL and football clubs in Melbourne and Brisbane did not respond to requests for comment, though the Melbourne Football Club – slated to feature the MA Services logo on its jerseys in 2026 – is reportedly evaluating the potential reputational impact of the scandal.
The controversy extends beyond individual clients, highlighting broader issues within the private security sector. MA Services has experienced rapid growth in recent years, becoming the fastest-growing player in an industry historically plagued by the mistreatment of migrant workers and connections to organized crime.
Concerns have also been raised about the independence of ASIAL, the security industry’s peak body. A security company owner stated, “ASIAL are absolutely toothless. They’re happy to take money from MA for their awards night. And they’ll make the right noises, but won’t do a thing when it comes to regulating the industry.” MA Services was, in fact, the led sponsor of ASIAL’s annual awards in October, where then-chief operating officer James Reid – now interim CEO – delivered a speech. ASIAL responded by stating it proceeds “in accordance with its internal complaints and dispute resolution process” and takes compliance with its code of professional conduct “very seriously.”
The investigations are multifaceted. The Australian Taxation Office and liquidators are examining allegations of tax evasion and the exploitation of foreign workers through a network of MA Services subcontractors. Moreover, a parliamentary inquiry is underway following revelations of an “opaque deal” involving MA Services executives, the government of Nauru, and Safe Hands, a subcontractor allegedly controlled by the world president of the Finks bikie gang.
Despite these serious allegations, the Victorian government continues to list MA Services as an approved supplier. The United Workers Union (UWU) has repeatedly warned the government about risks associated with security procurement, specifically concerning MA Services, and has advocated for the company’s removal from the approved supplier list.UWU vice-president Gary Bullock criticized the Allan government for failing to respond, attributing the situation to “weak procurement standards” that allow “dodgy operators” to secure public contracts.
Last week, a Victorian government spokesperson offered a general statement, asserting “zero tolerance for any sort of illegal behavior” and emphasizing that businesses must comply with relevant laws and licensing requirements, but did not directly address questions about MA Services or a potential review of their arrangement.
The unfolding scandal raises critical questions about oversight and accountability within the private security industry and the diligence of government procurement processes.
