The owner of Fortuna Villa in Bendigo has been fined $3,000 after a court found the business had supplied alcohol without the required liquor licence. The matter was heard in Bendigo Magistrates’ Court and was reported on 31 August 2026.

Liquor Control Victoria officers told the court that they attended Fortuna Villa during a raid in April 2025. During the inspection, officers reportedly found beer, wine and cider stored in refrigerators at the property. Alcohol was also listed on a menu available to customers.

The court heard that a worker at the property had served wine to customers attending a high tea. Supplying alcohol to customers can require the appropriate liquor licence, depending on the circumstances and the type of service being provided.

The owner, Paul Banks, told the court that he believed the wine had been donated rather than sold. He also said he had attempted to renew the property's liquor licence.

Despite the explanation, the court found the business owner guilty of the offence. Magistrate’s Court proceedings considered the evidence presented by Liquor Control Victoria and the circumstances surrounding the supply of alcohol.

The court ultimately imposed a $3,000 fine without recording a conviction. This means the financial penalty was imposed, but a criminal conviction was not recorded against the owner as part of the outcome.

The case highlights the importance of liquor licensing requirements for hospitality and tourism businesses. Businesses that provide alcohol to customers must understand the conditions that apply to their operations and ensure that any required licence remains valid.

Fortuna Villa is a well-known property in the Bendigo area, and the case has attracted local attention because of the property's hospitality activities. High teas and other functions can involve the service of food and beverages, making licensing requirements particularly important when alcohol is included.

Liquor Control Victoria is responsible for regulating Victoria's liquor industry and enforcing licensing laws. Its officers can investigate businesses where there are concerns about alcohol being supplied or sold outside the conditions of a licence.

For business owners, the case serves as a reminder that misunderstandings about whether alcohol is being sold, supplied or donated may not remove the requirement to comply with licensing laws. Operators need to make sure their arrangements are consistent with the relevant regulations.

The incident also demonstrates the role of the court system in dealing with alleged liquor licensing breaches. Businesses and individuals accused of offences have the opportunity to respond to allegations through the legal process, while the court determines the outcome based on the evidence presented.

In this case, the court accepted that a penalty was appropriate but did not record a conviction. The $3,000 fine brings the current court proceedings to a conclusion unless further legal action is taken.

The case is particularly relevant to Bendigo's hospitality and tourism sector, where businesses host events, functions and visitors throughout the year. Ensuring that all required licences are current can help businesses avoid enforcement action and financial penalties.

The outcome also provides a reminder to customers and event organisers that alcohol service is regulated. Businesses providing alcoholic beverages are expected to operate within the conditions established by Victorian liquor laws.

For Fortuna Villa, the court's decision means the business owner must pay the imposed fine while the matter remains a notable local licensing case. The incident occurred in 2025, but its court outcome was reported today, 31 August 2026.

The case reinforces the importance of checking liquor licensing requirements before providing alcohol at hospitality events. It also shows that regulators continue to monitor compliance and that breaches can result in significant financial penalties.

Overall, the Bendigo case centres on the legal requirements surrounding alcohol supply, the responsibilities of hospitality operators and the consequences of failing to meet licensing obligations. The owner was fined $3,000 without conviction following the court proceedings.