Skip to main content

The Star’s Proposal to Recover A$43.2 Million from High Roller Rejected

An Australian casino operative’s bid to retrieve gaming money from a high roller has been rejected by the court in Singapore. The Star brought the matter to the court in March. In a presiding issued earlier, International Commercial Court Judge Jeremy Cooke turned down the casino operative’s claim on public policy grounds.

The judge said that the decision was an “essential attendant of a public policy which is defensive of Singapore’s interests.”

What encouraged the legal challenge? July 2018. Upon his arrival, the Singaporean high roller player demanded a cheque cashing facility for A$40 million and managed to raise it to A$50 million a few days later.

The Star’s Proposal Rejected

After accruing great losses while playing baccarat at The Star Gold Coast, Dr. Wong then informed the casino that he will not continue to play and he blamed his losses on mistakes that were made by the dealer. In court, the player said that the betting venue convinced him to endure to play and that The Star also acknowledged the dealers’ mistakes

After gambling at the casino for close to two months, Dr. Wong had then collected losses of A$43.2 million. The Star then wrote that amount in the blank cheque. Back in Singapore, Dr. Wong told the bank to stop with the payments, quarreling that he wasn’t owing anything to the casino since it failed to prevent the incidence of mistakes.

The current court ruling

Judge Cooke said that his decision to turn down The Star’s claim emphasized a point that Singapore law does not apply the recovery of any cash won from a bet. However, other than betting regulated by the city-state’s Casino Control Act.

The judge also cited a Singapore Court of Appeal ruling from 2002which found that the claim had violated Section 5(2) of Singapore’s Civil Law Act. That precise section forbids the recovery of betting debts topic to certain exclusions.

According to Judge Cooke, public policy motivates the above-mentioned Act. In the ruling, the judge also explained that “had the administration wanted to reject foreign-controlled casinos. From the effect of Section 5(2) of the Act, it could have already done so. However, it chose to make precise exclusions as set out in Section 3(a) and the Casino Control Act only.”

More Casino News & Guides

Related Posts