Casino sues patrons.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jan/25/macau-casino-sues-chinese-millionaires
A Macau casino, owned by the eighth richest man in the US and the single largest donor in the 2012 elections – is suing two mainland Chinese high-rollers over alleged gambling debts worth millions.
Sheldon Adelson's Venetian Macau took legal action in a Hong Kong court this week to recover approximately $4.5m (£2.8m). In one lawsuit, filed on Wednesday Hong Kong's high court, the Venetian is trying to recover $3m from Zou Yunyu, who has an estimated $220m fortune from her company, the Shanghai Gaoyuan Property Group. In the second case, the Venetian is pursuing $1.5m from Xie Xiaoqing, a businessman and deputy to the provincial legislature in Hubei province, according to Hong Kong media. The Venetian is one of four casinos owned by the Chinese arm of Adelson's Las Vegas Sands Corp. Adelson's fortune is valued at more than $20bn and his interests span gaming empires in Nevada and Asia, the Israeli newspaper market and Republican politics in the US. In the 2012 elections, he and his wife, Miriam, donated $95m to Republican candidates, including a massive late surge of $33m to pro-Romney political committees.
Macau, a special administrative region of China and former Portuguese colony, earned $38bn in casino revenue in 2012, 13.5% higher than the year before.
Macau's rise to the top of the casino market has been powered by wealthy mainland Chinese gamblers, but the lawsuits highlight the difficulties in collecting debts if they return to the mainland, where gambling is illegal and debts aren't recognised by courts. Both Macau and nearby Hong Kong have separate legal systems from mainland China.
Still, the debts are a drop in the bucket for Las Vegas Sands, which reported net profit of about $350m in the third quarter, with more than 90% of that coming from Sands China, its Macau unit.
nothing. Nothing tangible was exchanged. Just
some time and an idea. If I bet you $1000 on
a prop bet and I don't pay, what are you out.
Nothing.
Quote: EvenBobIf the casino doesn't collect the debt, they're out
nothing. Nothing tangible was exchanged. Just
some time and an idea. If I bet you $1000 on
a prop bet and I don't pay, what are you out.
Nothing.
Bob, are you an asshole?
/5 day suspension if he is
/10 day suspension if he is not
/Suspension is for me, not the aforementioned asshole
Quote: EvenBobIf the casino doesn't collect the debt, they're out
nothing. Nothing tangible was exchanged. Just
some time and an idea. If I bet you $1000 on
a prop bet and I don't pay, what are you out.
Nothing.
Well hell with that logic- I don't owe my credit card companies a dime when I max then out playing at the casino.
Quote: DigitalTimBob, are you an asshole?
Hey! To know Bob is to love him. Often with a bit of effort, but he is worth it.
He is often spot-on, but often off-the-mark also, as he shoots from the hip,
and yes - he is always 100% opinionated.
He may be wrong on this, as the money and debt involved is real, but YOU respond by saying:
1. the money is a real casino debt, AND
2. You are wrong for the following arguments: [and so you list your arguments.]
Bob may lob an off the wall grenade here and there, and so you just cut him apart with good arguments, but he is never overtly ad hominen. YOU were.
Quote: DigitalTimBob, are you an asshole?
/5 day suspension if he is
/10 day suspension if he is not
/Suspension is for me, not the aforementioned asshole
Put it to a vote? Lol
Quote: EvenBobIf the casino doesn't collect the debt, they're out
nothing. Nothing tangible was exchanged. Just
some time and an idea. If I bet you $1000 on
a prop bet and I don't pay, what are you out.
Nothing.
I will politiely say... did you misread the original post?
Quote: DigitalTimBob, are you an asshole?
Okay, if I bet you $1000 on a prop bet and you don't
pay, how am I damaged? Am I injured
monetarily? Has my life been altered? Am I
worse off than before the bet?
No goods were exchanged, no service was performed.
I'm not out anything. The bet was an intellectual
exercise, with a monetary incentive. Neither party
is injured when the losing party reneges...
Prove otherwise.
Quote: MalaruWell hell with that logic- I don't owe my credit card companies a dime when I max then out playing at the casino.
Totally different scenario. You borrowed money
from the bank who issued the CC, they are now
an injured party. You have made them a little
worse off if you you don't repay them.
If you lose a bet in the casino and don't pay, how
have they been injured. It was an exchange of
ideas with a monetary boost. They said, bet you can't
can't beat us, and you said bet I can. You wagered
money on it. If you lost and didn't pay, how was the
casino hurt. Thats why they always get your money
up front, so you don't cop that attitude, like so many
high rollers do.
Although no money left the casino there should be $4.5 million more in it's coffers. Now if the Wizard were on the payroll he would have caught that before it had gone too far. Your loss, Shelley. :-)
Quote: DigitalTimBob, are you an asshole?
/5 day suspension if he is
/10 day suspension if he is not
/Suspension is for me, not the aforementioned asshole
What do you think should happen? You know the rules. The fact that people have gotten away with insulting this member in the past combined with the fact that he won't whine and complain about it might make him look like an easy target to some. I don't think the secret agents will be able to ignore this one.
EvenBob is right with respect to the idea the casino is not out any money but they are owed money. The bet/bets are in a sense, a contract. A service was performed. The casino made the bet possible, hence a service.Quote: EvenBobOkay, if I bet you $1000 on a prop bet and you don't
pay, how am I damaged? Am I injured
monetarily? Has my life been altered? Am I
worse off than before the bet?
No goods were exchanged, no service was performed.
I'm not out anything. The bet was an intellectual
exercise, with a monetary incentive. Neither party
is injured when the losing party reneges...
Prove otherwise.
If they brought the money they played with them, then when it was gone, it was gone, and there would be no debt.
So, EvenBob or TreeTop, how could the guest have a gambling debt?
line of credit, another contract.Quote: MonkeyMonkeyHow does a guest end up owing a gambling debt at the end of their visit?
If they brought the money they played with them, then when it was gone, it was gone, and there would be no debt.
So, EvenBob or TreeTop, how could the guest have a gambling debt?
Quote: treetopbuddyline of credit, another contract.
Right, so how can EvenBob be correct?
Because the money they loaned they got back? They borrowed the money, thus they owe it back.
So of course that makes his $1000 prop bet example ludicrous.
has
You call an escort service for a "date," and agree to meet her in your hotel room.
She arrives; you are too drunk to *perform* and you tell her to leave.
Do you owe her any money?
As for the original example involving the bettor: he owes the money he lost.
He and the casino have a contract with every bet; in consideration for allowing the player to bet, to take a shot, he agrees to pay if he loses the bet.
The tangible thing the shooter gets is a venue and opportunity to make a legal bet.
Quote: DigitalTim/Suspension is for me, not the aforementioned asshole
If you'd stop before that last, I'd have said a suspension would be unwarranted and an awful injustice. If, as the Laconians are said to once have said they said.
Let's turn it around. If any gambler, recreational, serious, AP, whatever, won millions from the casino at any game, and the casino refused to pay, would anyone claim they're out no money?
Please.
Gaming debts are debts of honor.
Quote: MonkeyMonkeyThey borrowed the money, thus they owe it back.
.
They gave it back when they lost it to the
casino. The casino is not injured, they aren't
out a dime. Thats why gambling debts are so
hard to legally collect in some (most?) states, the
suing party can't prove he was damaged.
Quote: EvenBobThey gave it back when they lost it to the
casino. The casino is not injured, they aren't
out a dime. Thats why gambling debts are so
hard to legally collect in some (most?) states, the
suing party can't prove he was damaged.
The old difficulty in suing in state court on a gambling debt was due to the fact that gambling used to be ILLEGAL, and the legislatures did not want to allow people to sue to collect illegal debts: a matter of public policy.
In Nevada, you most certainly can and will be sued on an unpaid gambling debt owed to a casino.
Right or wrong, gambling debts are legitimized these days.
Quote: EvenBobThey gave it back when they lost it to the
casino. The casino is not injured, they aren't
out a dime. Thats why gambling debts are so
hard to legally collect in some (most?) states, the
suing party can't prove he was damaged.
The fact that they are not out any money is besides the point. If you paint my house and I stiff you on the payment you are not out anything either (assuming I provided materials) but I still owe you the money. However, they are out the comps, labor, costs to run the game, etc. More to the point though, not paying them the money forces the casino to take the wrong side of a "heads I win tails you lose" that they simply do not want to take. Bob you should open that casino that pays winners and does not collect the losers.
Quote: MrVThe old difficulty in suing in state court on a gambling debt was due to the fact that gambling used to be ILLEGAL, and the legislatures did not want to allow people to sue to collect illegal debts: a matter of public policy.
In Nevada, you most certainly can and will be sued on an unpaid gambling debt owed to a casino.
Right or wrong, gambling debts are legitimized these days.
In NV, as far as I remember, the casinos set it up so you are breaking a law by passing a bad check, in order for it to be enforceable and takes gambling out of the equation.
Quote: onenickelmiracleIn NV, as far as I remember, the casinos set it up so you are breaking a law by passing a bad check, in order for it to be enforceable and takes gambling out of the equation.
I think that is to make it enforceable in criminal court, which gives them more collection leverage. Otherwise, they would need to sue in civil court, which is the path discussed in the OP.
Quote: bigfoot66The fact that they are not out any money is besides the point.
Its just that its tough to feel sorry for a creditor
thats not out anything. I was made aware of
this decades ago in a movie. Some bookie was
chasing the hero all over town to collect his
money. When he had the hero cornered, he
asked for more time because the bookie wasn't
really out any money, why can't he wait. The
bookies argument was, if all of his clients took
that attitude, he'd never get paid.
If we make a bet and shake hands, for no money,
and you lose, so what. Bet for money and the
whole thing changes. But nothing has really
changed at all, just the semantics.
Quote: EvenBobIts just that its tough to feel sorry for a creditor
thats not out anything. I was made aware of
this decades ago in a movie. Some bookie was
chasing the hero all over town to collect his
money. When he had the hero cornered, he
asked for more time because the bookie wasn't
really out any money, why can't he wait. The
bookies argument was, if all of his clients took
that attitude, he'd never get paid.
If we make a bet and shake hands, for no money,
and you lose, so what. Bet for money and the
whole thing changes. But nothing has really
changed at all, just the semantics.
Say I lend a friend $100. Some time later, before he has paid it back, we make a $100 bet on some game. I win the bet, and he pays me the $100. You're saying I shouldn't be upset if he never pays me back the $100 I originally lent him, since I've now been made whole via the bet? What if he had won the bet? Then we'd be square, meaning I'm out $100. So he gets to freeroll?? No, he does not, because the loan and the bet are mutually exclusive events... as are the casino credit loan and the gambling losses.
Quote: jc2286You're saying I shouldn't be upset if he never pays me back the $100 I originally lent him
Where did I ever say the debt isn't owed and shouldn't
be paid? I just said the loser isn't out anything. Thats
why the mob used to break the legs of welchers in Vegas,
to send a message to other would be welchers.
Quote: EvenBobOkay, if I bet you $1000 on a prop bet and you don't
pay, how am I damaged? Am I injured
monetarily? Has my life been altered? Am I
worse off than before the bet?
The asymmetry is that this person's wealth presumably comes from some other source. If you bet $1000 with a bookie, and don't pay, what's the bookie out? $1000, paid to the other side of the bet in the expectation that you'd cover it. Just because the word "bet" is in it, as this is not the first time you fail to understand, does not make it exactly like a friendly wager with some joe.
Quote: EvenBobThey gave it back when they lost it to the
casino. The casino is not injured, they aren't
out a dime. Thats why gambling debts are so
hard to legally collect in some (most?) states, the
suing party can't prove he was damaged.
No, it's because in most states no enforceable contract has been made.
They got their money, the millionaires', yes. But it doesn't matter to them whose the money used to be (as I've said when you bang on about how they want you, specifically, to lose), they only care about money in vs. money out. Someone's going to walk out of that casino with a little extra money, and that person's got to be paid out of the losses, and the only way to do that and still turn a profit themselves is to continuously get what they're due.
I'm not sure how this situation came to be. It may be that there are two transactions here - a loan and a bet. Neglecting one because the other didn't work out in that case is indefensible. It may also be that a bet was made without expecting the money up front. In that case, the books have to be balanced.
Quote: 24Bingo
I'm not sure how this situation came to be. It may be that there are two transactions here - a loan and a bet. .
The casino's are owed the money. They should be paid. But
some people, especially wealthy ones, justify not paying by
using the argument the casino isn't out anything. Isn't
that what Joe Francis originally said, before he changed his
story?
Quote: EvenBobWhere did I ever say the debt isn't owed and shouldn't
be paid? I just said the loser isn't out anything. Thats
why the mob used to break the legs of welchers in Vegas,
to send a message to other would be welchers.
I understand what you're saying now.
make a bet and they cover it. Thats where the
value comes from. You can confidently make a
bet, knowing that the casino will pay up nearly
100% of the time. Thats why they deserve to be
paid, and thats why they get paid. Its a real insult
to your integrity, and the integrity of the system,
to renege on a bet. Its not what a gentleman does.
Quote: EvenBobIts just that its tough to feel sorry for a creditor thats not out anything.
I spent hours working on a project for a client once. I didn't deliver anything tangible, just bits over the Internet. But it was hours of my time under the promise of getting paid for it. The client stiffed me. Are you suggesting that I wasn't out anything?
How is that any different than spending the time running a casino on the promise that losing gamblers will pay their debts?
Quote: MathExtremistI spent hours working on a project for a client once.
Why do you think your time isn't worth anything? When
you pay a doctor or a lawyer, you're paying for their
time and expertise, very valuable things. I was always
being asked to use my time and experience to give free
appraisals when I was in the antique business. Those
same people would never ask their doctor for free advice.
Quote: EvenBobWhy do you think your time isn't worth anything? When
you pay a doctor or a lawyer, you're paying for their
time and expertise, very valuable things. I was always
being asked to use my time and experience to give free
appraisals when I was in the antique business. Those
same people would never ask their doctor for free advice.
He never said it wasn't. Did you really completely miss the point he was making?
Quote: jc2286He never said it wasn't. Did you really completely miss the point he was making?
He asked if I was suggesting if his time wasn't worth anything.
Quote: EvenBobHe asked if I was suggesting if his time wasn't worth anything.
You made a comment about finding it difficult to feel sorry for a creditor who isn't out anything (implying since they are still monetarily whole it's not the end of the world). He gave an example where he similarly was wronged but was still monetarily whole (implying that you would similarly find it difficult to feel bad for him, for the same reason). That was his point - that there are plenty of intangibles that matter (such as time and effort), but you seem to be focused on the money. I'm honestly not sure if you're oblivious to this or just trolling.
Quote: jc2286I'm honestly not sure if you're oblivious to this or just trolling.
LOL! Oops, you're blocked. I'll unblock you when you
stop baiting, which will probably be never. Buh bye..
totally understand where EvenBob is coming from here......I'm a big believer in "no harm no foul" and that's the idea that EvenBob is trying to convey. The credit line is obviously a debt that needs to paid. Not knowing the backstory on the gamblers, I'm guessing their losses are well beyond what they owe. They are probably tired of getting an ass kicking and are simply saying, come get the rest if you can......we are going to make you work for it since you, the casino, didn't have to work too hard taking millions from us.Quote: EvenBobIts just that its tough to feel sorry for a creditor
thats not out anything. I was made aware of
this decades ago in a movie. Some bookie was
chasing the hero all over town to collect his
money. When he had the hero cornered, he
asked for more time because the bookie wasn't
really out any money, why can't he wait. The
bookies argument was, if all of his clients took
that attitude, he'd never get paid.
If we make a bet and shake hands, for no money,
and you lose, so what. Bet for money and the
whole thing changes. But nothing has really
changed at all, just the semantics.
Quote: treetopbuddysince you, the casino, didn't have to work too hard taking millions from us.
You clearly don't have much idea of what goes into running a casino.
Quote: MonkeyMonkeyYou clearly don't have much idea of what goes into running a casino.
Yeah, lets charge the whale who lost 2mil in 4 hours
with the cost of running the entire casino. It didn't
cost them anymore for him than it did anybody
else.
Quote: EvenBobIts just that its tough to feel sorry for a creditor
thats not out anything.
Agree completely. Hard to see a guy worth 40 billion who gives money to stone evil folks like Newt and Romney and root for him. But it is childish to base our moral compass on emotion.
Also, its not just that the bookie would never get paid. If the bookie does not enforce the gambling debts then there is no bookie and people lose the opportunity to gamble.
But seriously, Sands took the risk of extending the credit to the pair. And of course if the money was loaned, it's owed. And the casino is out. We don't know the history of the two's gambling. They could have taken the casino for millions in the past and this lawsuit is only a partial recovery.
Likely, for the Sands, this will be a test of the legal system -- the outcome of which will determine whether the Sands and other Macau casinos will extend credit to gamblers from mainland China.
wait, what? MonkeyMonkey, the casinos are up and running 24/7, 365 days a year whether these "whales" are there or not......they might have opened up a table for their play but beyond that the casino was not out any money by them playing. The costs are FIXED! Got it! Don't tell me that I don't know what it takes to run a casino!Quote: MonkeyMonkeyYou clearly don't have much idea of what goes into running a casino.
Suppose you and a buddy go into a casino, each get a line of credit, and take out markers for $10,000 at the roulette table. You put the whole stack on red, and your buddy puts his whole stack on black. The ball stops on black, your buddy cashes in, pays off his marker, and leaves with an extra $10,000 in his pocket. You decide that the casino really hasn't been harmed by your being there, so you just flip them the bird as you walk out, the way it appears the Chinese whales may have done with their losses. The casino still has all of the cash that they supposedly "loaned" to you, and it didn't cost them much of anything to provide you with the game, so there is no need for you to pay anything back. No harm, no foul, right?
I guess I'm still missing your point.
Why is this so hard to understand? The casino is not out any money! The casino is owed the debt! What else can be possibly said....!!!Quote: DocI guess I'm still missing Bob's point. Look at it this way Bob:
Suppose you and a buddy go into a casino, each get a line of credit, and take out markers for $10,000 at the roulette table. You put the whole stack on red, and your buddy puts his whole stack on black. The ball stops on black, your buddy cashes in, pays off his marker, and leaves with an extra $10,000 in his pocket. You decide that the casino really hasn't been harmed by your being there, so you just flip them the bird as you walk out, the way it appears the Chinese whales may have done with their losses. The casino still has all of the cash that they supposedly "loaned" to you, and it didn't cost them much of anything to provide you with the game, so there is no need for you to pay anything back. No harm, no foul, right?
I guess I'm still missing your point.
