Liquor License Police Department Recommendation - That One Mini Mart.pdf

City of Phoenix — Formal (2020-05-06)

Extracted text (via ocr_local) 5672 characters

LIQUOR LICENSE DISAPPROVAL FORM

Police Department Liquor License Disapproval Recommendation

|S os Application Information : |

The Police Department recommends disapproval of this liquor license application for
the following reasons:

Mr. Shamsher Singh in accordance with Arizona Revised Statute 4-203.A is not capable,
qualified and reliable to own and operate a Series 10 liquor license due to a possible
hidden ownership, lack of oversight of his business, failure to truthfully disclose his source
of funding for the business and overall lack of understanding of his responsibilities as a
business owner.

The question of a possible hidden ownership arose after a careful review of Mr. Singh’s
presented documents. A store visit and interviews showed disparity in his statements and
the documents submitted. According to Mr. Singh’s statements and the state liquor
application he would own this liquor store and be a fulltime manager at the “76” gas station
convenience mart located at 4102 North 27" Avenue which is 299 feet apart.

The question arose of who would operate That One Mini Mart in his absence. During a visit
to That One Mini Mart, Ms. Noor Dinkha was operating the store alone. When asked if she
was the manager she said “yes” and then was informed that she was not listed on the state
application as the manager, she then immediately said “no”. Ms. Dinkha stated that she
only worked at the store during the time Mr. Singh worked at his other job. Ms. Dinkha
admitted that her son is Mark Dinkha, the previous owner who had his interim liquor license
revoked. Ultimately Mr. Dinkha’s liquor license was denied by the State Liquor Board.

Mr. Singh was asked how much money he paid for the business including startup costs.
He stated on his application, which he was the agent for and completed himself, the
amount of $70,000.00. Prior to agreeing for an interview at the Department of Liquor
Licensing and Control, Mr. Singh signed a Consequence of Making a False statement
affidavit.

Under section ARS 39-161: Presentment of false instrument for filing:

A person who acknowledges, certifies, notarizes, procures or offers to be filed, registered
or recorded in a public office in this state an instrument he knows to be false or forged,
which, if genuine, could be filed, registered or recorded under any law of this state or the
United States, or in compliance with established procedure is guilty of a class 6 felony.

During the interview Mr. Singh presented a Purchase Agreement and Receipt which
indicated that Mr. Singh has not yet paid Mr. Dinkha for the business. According to Mr.
Singh he issued Mr. Dinkha a check for $20,000.00 but was told Mr. Dinkha would not
deposit the check until he obtained the liquor license. Mr. Singh was informed that it was a
seller financed purchase due to the terms of the agreement. This contradicted what he
presented on his state application and city questionnaire where he stated it was paid for
through personal savings.

Page 1 of 2

LIQUOR LICENSE DISAPPROVAL FORM

Police Department Liquor License Disapproval Recommendation

1 Se << Application Information ; ee ee |

Business Name THAT ONE MINI MART District [ 4 ]
Business Location 2720 West Indian School Road
Applicant Names __| Shamsher Singh Series Type | 10 |

Mr. Singh was then asked for the property lease agreement and how much he paid for the
utilities. Mr. Singh said that he paid $2069 a month, which included rent and utilities. Later
he stated that he paid $1700 for electricity and water. When asked for the copy of the lease
agreement, Mr. Singh presented a lease transfer document signed by only he and Mr.
Dinkha, not the property owner Mr. Taejin Chung.

At one point during the interview it was pointed out to Mr. Singh that the Purchase
Agreement he signed contained a non-compete clause that stated that he would not
manage, own or operate a similar business within 5 miles for 5 years. Mr. Singh stated that
he had not read that portion of the lease agreement and did not want to give up his job at
the “76” gas station. Mr. Singh said that wanted to keep his job at the gas station and
preferred to sell the business since he was not making any money at That One Mini Mart.

Mr. Singh was asked how he knew That One Mini Mart was for sale. He stated that Mr.
Dinkha would purchase gas at the “76” and told Mr. Singh that his liquor license was
revoked and asked if he wanted to purchase the liquor store business from him. Mr. Singh
stated that he never inquired from Mr. Dinkha why his license to sell liquor was revoked.
Mr. Singh stated was told that he would gross $40,000.00 a month according to Mr. Dinkha.
Mr. Singh was unable to explain in detail his expenses and profit since operating the
business. Mr. Singh stated that he had an accountant take care of payroll, and then stated
that he was losing a lot of money but was unable to give an estimation.

The evidence indicates that Mr. Singh will not be able to properly over see the business,
intentionally or unknowingly misrepresented facts on official documents and did not
understand the terms of operating the business according to his agreement. This indicates
that Mr. Singh is not capable, reliable or qualified to hold a liquor license within the city of
Phoenix.

This recommendation for disapproval is submitted by: Det. R. Gokool 7605
SIGNATURES

Administrative Licensing Investigator |. Alonge A4289 (, De F Mah
Liquor Enforcement Detail Supervisor |Sgt. Mark Doty 5785 EET oe a

Page 2 of 2