Under Casino law, Sinkie is not premium unless deposit $100,000

[besotted]

http://www.businesstimes.com.sg/sub/news/story/0,4574,419036,00.html?

Published December 25, 2010

Critical issues arise as MBS sues to recover gambling debt
As casino seeks to enforce collection of $250K gambling debt, focus will be on definition of 'premium player' and law that discourages lending to Singaporean gamblers


By GRACE LEONG


THE first lawsuit brought by a casino in Singapore to collect gambling debts has raised several issues - from who is a 'premium player' to a focus on the legislation that discourages extension of credit to Singaporean gamblers.



A lawsuit filed in the Singapore High Court by Marina Bay Sands (MBS) against a Singaporean to enforce collection of a $250,000 gambling debt has triggered questions relating to credit extended by the casino and restrictions under Singapore's Casino Control Act and its subsidiary legislation.

Under Section 108(7) of the Casino Control Act, casinos can extend credit only to non-Singaporeans and 'premium players'. Under the Casino Control (Credit) Regulations 2010, a casino patron who is a Singaporean qualifies as a 'premium player' when he or she has at least $100,000 in a deposit account with the casino before the commencement of play.

$250,000 casino chips

In its lawsuit, MBS maintains the gambler had deposited $100,000 cash to qualify as a premium player and would not have been able to obtain $250,000 worth of casino chips without a credit agreement with the casino.

But Lester Ong Boon Lin, 31, claims the loan is unenforceable for several reasons.

He claims he had withdrawn his $100,000 deposit to buy gambling chips before the casino extended credit to him. And because he was allegedly no longer a premium player when credit was extended to him, the marker - or casino debt evidenced by a credit instrument - is deemed null and void under the Civil Law Act, he alleges in court documents.

In addition, Mr Ong's lawyer Sunil Singh Panoo of Dhillon & Partners contends the casino is deemed a moneylender because it had allegedly extended credit to a non-premium member. But because the casino isn't a licensed moneylender, the marker is therefore unenforceable under the Moneylenders Act.

But MBS disagreed, claiming Mr Ong never denied owing the money and even made various proposals for repayment. MBS said in court papers it took legal action after Mr Ong's cheque bounced and he refused to repay the loan. The gaming industry is now watching to see how the term 'premium player' will be interpreted by Singapore courts for the first time since the Casino Control Act was passed into law in 2006 to regulate casino gambling in Singapore.

'The consequences of MBS extending credit to Ong will depend on whether Ong succeeds in his argument that at the time credit was extended to him, he was no longer a premium player as defined in the Act,' said Lau Kok Keng, head of Rajah & Tann LLP's Intellectual Property, Sports & Gaming Practice.

Section 108, which is legislation aimed at restricting credit extension to gamblers at local casinos, reflects the particular concern that the Singapore government had about the harmful social effects of gambling on credit, Mr Lau said.

Licensed casino operators are prohibited from extending credit to gamblers who are Singapore citizens or permanent residents unless they are 'premium players'.

At what point does the patron cease being a premium player, asked Eugene Tan, assistant professor of law at Singapore Management University.

'Does the deposit and immediate withdrawal of the deposit by a patron to buy chips - leading to the patron's account balance being less than $100,000 - result in the patron automatically not being a premium player?' he asked.

If so, the casinos will have to review their regime of credit extension to their premium players, he said.

Mr Ong also claims in his suit that the credit extended to him was unsolicited, which he alleges violates the Casino Control (Credit) Regulations 2010.

Should casino operators flout this regulation prohibiting unsolicited credit from being granted, they could face disciplinary action under Section 54 of the Act. These include letters of censure, change of terms of the casino licence or licence suspension, and fines not exceeding $1 million.

If casinos do not operate strictly within the confines of their licence terms and the Casino Control Act, they may face sanctions from the Casino Regulatory Authority, Mr Lau said.

Unlicensed moneylending

And if a casino is proven to have engaged in unlicensed moneylending, it can face criminal sanctions under the Moneylenders Act, he added.

According to gaming lawyers with Nevada's largest private law firm, Lionel Sawyer & Collins, most casinos will settle a case if a meritorious defence is presented.

'An exception to this general rule is a technical defence in which the patron attempts to avoid the obligation by challenging the jurisdiction of the court, the validity of the law, or the procedure in obtaining the judgment. In these cases, the gaming industry's ability to enforce gaming debts is at risk. Therefore, the casino must defend the action,' according to the Las Vegas-based law firm in its book, Nevada Gaming Law.

In Singapore, licensed casinos may rely on contract law to enforce unpaid gambling debts. Where the patron furnishes a cheque in payment of chips or as a security deposit, and the cheque is subsequently dishonoured, the casino may also sue on the dishonoured cheque, Mr Lau said.

The Casino Control Act allows the two casinos to enforce gambling debts incurred by their customers provided their claim falls within the provisions of Section 108, he said. That enables the industry to collect its gaming debts, which in turn affects casino profits and revenues.

According to a Bank of America Merrill Lynch report, gaming revenues from both MBS and Resorts World Sentosa will likely reach $6 billion this year, and jump to between $7 billion and $8 billion in 2011.

 

[BCR101]

http://www.businesstimes.com.sg/sub/news/story/0,4574,419036,00.html?

Published December 25, 2010

Critical issues arise as MBS sues to recover gambling debt
As casino seeks to enforce collection of $250K gambling debt, focus will be on definition of 'premium player' and law that discourages lending to Singaporean gamblers


By GRACE LEONG


THE first lawsuit brought by a casino in Singapore to collect gambling debts has raised several issues - from who is a 'premium player' to a focus on the legislation that discourages extension of credit to Singaporean gamblers.



A lawsuit filed in the Singapore High Court by Marina Bay Sands (MBS) against a Singaporean to enforce collection of a $250,000 gambling debt has triggered questions relating to credit extended by the casino and restrictions under Singapore's Casino Control Act and its subsidiary legislation.

Under Section 108(7) of the Casino Control Act, casinos can extend credit only to non-Singaporeans and 'premium players'. Under the Casino Control (Credit) Regulations 2010, a casino patron who is a Singaporean qualifies as a 'premium player' when he or she has at least $100,000 in a deposit account with the casino before the commencement of play.

$250,000 casino chips

In its lawsuit, MBS maintains the gambler had deposited $100,000 cash to qualify as a premium player and would not have been able to obtain $250,000 worth of casino chips without a credit agreement with the casino.

But Lester Ong Boon Lin, 31, claims the loan is unenforceable for several reasons.



Lester Ong will win this case with a " natural nine " !!!




http://law.nus.edu.sg/sybil/downloads/articles/SJICL-1997-2/SJICL-1997-593.pdf




SUPREME COURT SINGAPORE




8 December 2009

Media Summary

Poh Soon Kiat v Desert Palace Inc (trading as Caesars Palace)
Civil Appeal No 113 of 2008 (Summonses Nos 5512 of 2008, 1309 of 2009 and 1312 of 2009)








Decision of the Court of Appeal (delivered by Chan Sek Keong CJ)



Background

1 The respondent, a casino operator, filed an action against the appellant for the enforcement of a foreign judgment obtained in 2001 (“the 2001 Judgment”) in a Santa Clara court in California. The 2001 Judgment set aside a fraudulent transfer of the appellant’s interest in a particular piece of property, and ordered that the property be sold and the proceeds applied to satisfy judgment debts owing to the respondent under a judgment in 1999 from the same Californian court. This 1999 judgment was based on a judgment of a Nevada court on a gambling debt owed by the appellant to the respondent.

2 The High Court held that the respondent was entitled to judgment as the 2001 Judgment was an enforceable judgment, and it was not barred by the six-year limitation period under s 6(1)(a) of the Limitation Act (Cap 163, 1996 Rev Ed) (“the LA”).

3 The High Court also held that s 5(2) of the Civil Law Act (Cap 43, 1999 Rev Ed) (“the CLA”), which prohibits actions for the recovery of gambling debts, did not apply, as the Court of Appeal had held in Liao Eng Kiat v Burswood Nominees Ltd [2004] 4 SLR 690 (“Burswood Nominees”) that a judgment from a court in Western Australia (“the WA Judgment”) that was also based on a gambling debt was enforceable by way of registration under the Reciprocal Enforcement of Commonwealth Judgments Act (Cap 264, 1985 Rev Ed) (“the RECJA”) notwithstanding s 5(2) of the CLA. The High Court held that there was no reason why actions to enforce foreign judgments based on gambling debts and registrations to enforce foreign judgments based on gambling debts should be treated differently.



The appeal

4 On appeal, the Court of Appeal allowed the appeal on the ground that the 2001 Judgment did not have the essential elements of an enforceable foreign judgment under the law, as it was not a judgment for payment of money, but was a judgment to set aside a fraudulent transfer of the appellant’s interest in a particular property.

5 The Court of Appeal also re-examined the law on limitation of actions on foreign judgments for payment of money and reaffirmed the law that the limitation period is six years.

6 The Court of Appeal, in addition, examined Burswood Nominees and expressed its disagreement with the decision. In the court’s view, s 5(2) of the CLA encapsulated a statutory public policy that should have overridden any other public policy to prevent the registration of the WA Judgment, pursuant to s 3(2)(f) of the RECJA, which states that a foreign judgment may not be registered if its cause of action was contrary to the public policy of Singapore.

7 The Court of Appeal left open for decision the question of whether an action to enforce a foreign judgment based on a gambling debt could be brought or maintained in spite of s 5(2) of the CLA, as this issue was not addressed in Burswood Nominees or any other previous case in Singapore.





This summary is provided to assist in the understanding of the Court’s judgment. It is not intended to be a substitute for the reasons of the Court.






Last updated on 09 DEC 2009

 

[Ramseth]

Casinos shouldn't be allowed to extend credit directly at all. All players, however high rollers or premium, should come with cash deposit and the deposit is the limit. If they want to borrow money, they should borrow from banks before they come.

 

[commoner]

casinos in macau and vegas do give credit (markers) to entice whales to gamble more. same goes to genting.

one of the big difference as yet is singapore wants junkets to register with the government. latest i heard, no one wanna register as yet, but junkets still bring their whales from australia, china, vietnam and indonesia to rws and mbs, and they have made other arrangements with the casinos in singapore.

 

[allanlee]

but junkets still bring their whales from australia, china, vietnam and indonesia to rws and mbs, and they have made other arrangements with the casinos in singapore.

Yes yes.... the junkets businesses are thriving in Singkieland..... and so are the triads linked with these junkets.

In fact their operations are so lucrative that many of our local gangsters have switched over to working for them. :p

 

[Yip Hon]

.



Critical issues arise as MBS sues to recover gambling debt


THE first lawsuit brought by a casino in Singapore to collect gambling debts has raised several issues - from who is a 'premium player' to a focus on the legislation that discourages extension of credit to Singaporean gamblers.

A lawsuit filed in the Singapore High Court by Marina Bay Sands (MBS) against a Singaporean to enforce collection of a $250,000 gambling debt has triggered questions relating to credit extended by the casino and restrictions under Singapore's Casino Control Act and its subsidiary legislation.

Under Section 108(7) of the Casino Control Act, casinos can extend credit only to non-Singaporeans and 'premium players'. Under the Casino Control (Credit) Regulations 2010, a casino patron who is a Singaporean qualifies as a 'premium player' when he or she has at least $100,000 in a deposit account with the casino before the commencement of play.

$250,000 casino chips

In its lawsuit, MBS maintains the gambler had deposited $100,000 cash to qualify as a premium player and would not have been able to obtain $250,000 worth of casino chips without a credit agreement with the casino.

But Lester Ong Boon Lin, 31, claims the loan is unenforceable for several reasons.

He claims he had withdrawn his $100,000 deposit to buy gambling chips before the casino extended credit to him. And because he was allegedly no longer a premium player when credit was extended to him, the marker - or casino debt evidenced by a credit instrument - is deemed null and void under the Civil Law Act, he alleges in court documents.

In addition, Mr Ong's lawyer Sunil Singh Panoo of Dhillon & Partners contends the casino is deemed a moneylender because it had allegedly extended credit to a non-premium member. But because the casino isn't a licensed moneylender, the marker is therefore unenforceable under the Moneylenders Act.

But MBS disagreed, claiming Mr Ong never denied owing the money and even made various proposals for repayment. MBS said in court papers it took legal action after Mr Ong's cheque bounced and he refused to repay the loan. The gaming industry is now watching to see how the term 'premium player' will be interpreted by Singapore courts for the first time since the Casino Control Act was passed into law in 2006 to regulate casino gambling in Singapore.

'The consequences of MBS extending credit to Ong will depend on whether Ong succeeds in his argument that at the time credit was extended to him, he was no longer a premium player as defined in the Act,' said Lau Kok Keng, head of Rajah & Tann LLP's Intellectual Property, Sports & Gaming Practice.

Section 108, which is legislation aimed at restricting credit extension to gamblers at local casinos, reflects the particular concern that the Singapore government had about the harmful social effects of gambling on credit, Mr Lau said.

Licensed casino operators are prohibited from extending credit to gamblers who are Singapore citizens or permanent residents unless they are 'premium players'.

At what point does the patron cease being a premium player, asked Eugene Tan, assistant professor of law at Singapore Management University.

'Does the deposit and immediate withdrawal of the deposit by a patron to buy chips - leading to the patron's account balance being less than $100,000 - result in the patron automatically not being a premium player?' he asked.

If so, the casinos will have to review their regime of credit extension to their premium players, he said.

Mr Ong also claims in his suit that the credit extended to him was unsolicited, which he alleges violates the Casino Control (Credit) Regulations 2010.

Should casino operators flout this regulation prohibiting unsolicited credit from being granted, they could face disciplinary action under Section 54 of the Act. These include letters of censure, change of terms of the casino licence or licence suspension, and fines not exceeding $1 million.

If casinos do not operate strictly within the confines of their licence terms and the Casino Control Act, they may face sanctions from the Casino Regulatory Authority, Mr Lau said.

Unlicensed moneylending

And if a casino is proven to have engaged in unlicensed moneylending, it can face criminal sanctions under the Moneylenders Act, he added.

According to gaming lawyers with Nevada's largest private law firm, Lionel Sawyer & Collins, most casinos will settle a case if a meritorious defence is presented.

'An exception to this general rule is a technical defence in which the patron attempts to avoid the obligation by challenging the jurisdiction of the court, the validity of the law, or the procedure in obtaining the judgment. In these cases, the gaming industry's ability to enforce gaming debts is at risk. Therefore, the casino must defend the action,' according to the Las Vegas-based law firm in its book, Nevada Gaming Law.

In Singapore, licensed casinos may rely on contract law to enforce unpaid gambling debts. Where the patron furnishes a cheque in payment of chips or as a security deposit, and the cheque is subsequently dishonoured, the casino may also sue on the dishonoured cheque, Mr Lau said.

The Casino Control Act allows the two casinos to enforce gambling debts incurred by their customers provided their claim falls within the provisions of Section 108, he said. That enables the industry to collect its gaming debts, which in turn affects casino profits and revenues.

According to a Bank of America Merrill Lynch report, gaming revenues from both MBS and Resorts World Sentosa will likely reach $6 billion this year, and jump to between $7 billion and $8 billion in 2011.


.

 

[Yip Hon]

>





Trio arrested for selling illegal insurance bets at Marina Bay Sands

[2011] 16 Jun_TODAY




Title: Trio arrested for selling illegal insurance bets at Marina Bay Sands
Source: TODAY
Author:



Legal News Archive


SINGAPORE - In what is believed to be the first case of its kind here, the police have arrested three members of an illegal betting syndicate at the Marina Bay Sands (MBS) casino for selling illegal insurance bets.

The trio, two Singaporean men and an Indonesian man aged between 43 and 48, approached patrons at the casino's Paiza Club to offer them illegal insurance bets at the baccarat tables between April and June. Such acts amounted to offering private bets which is an offence under the Betting Act.

They were arrested at Paiza Club on Tuesday at about 5pm. More than S$46,000 worth of casino chips, a cheque with value for S$100,000 and cash amounting to about S$78,000 were seized from them.

The suspects will be charged in court today for the offence of acting as a bookmaker under the Betting Act. Anyone found guilty can be fined at least S$20,000 and up to S$200,000, and can also be punished with imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years.

Director of the Criminal Investigation Department, Senior Assistant Commissioner of Police Hoong Wee Teck, advised casino patrons not to make illegal bets with illegal bookmakers. "Police will take stern and swift action against persons involved in any illegal activities inside the casinos," he warned.

"Foreigners involved in such activities risk being prohibited from re-entering Singapore in future. Tough action will be taken ... which includes banning them from entering casinos where necessary."

 

[Yip Hon]

MARINA Bay Sands (MBS) is suing one of its players over $240,868 in credit extended to him.

However, Mr Lester Ong, 30, whose father reportedly owns a famous nasi lemak franchise, is fighting back. His defence: He was not a 'premium' player when the casino extended him the credit, so it amounted to an 'unrecoverable' loan.

In his defence filed with the Supreme Court, he claimed he had withdrawn the $100,000 deposit premium players needed to have with the casino.

In which case, he maintained, the credit from MBS amounted to a loan - like a moneylender's. And since the casino was not licensed to lend, it could not recover the money from him, he maintained.

Mr Ong also claimed that he did not ask for the credit of $250,000 that was given to him on May 2.

MBS has countered that credit was extended only after he deposited the $100,000. It also said that he had asked for a credit of $1 million.

Mr Ong, MBS claimed, also gave the casino a cheque as security, which was later dishonoured and returned. The amount was not specified in the writ. The casino made 'several' attempts to recover the money and sent him two letters in August, the writ said.

A pre-trial conference has been scheduled for Dec 17.

When The Straits Times visited Mr Ong's three-storey bungalow in Siglap this week, a woman said he was away.

An MBS spokesman declined to comment, saying the matter was the subject of an ongoing suit.

NG KAI LING

 

[Yip Hon]

MBS lawsuit against casino patron likely to go to trial in open court



by Ng Jing Yng 04:46 AM Mar 26, 2011SINGAPORE - The first lawsuit by a casino here to recover money from a gambler is now likely to go to trial in open court, as the High Court on Friday granted him a chance to argue his case.

Marina Bay Sands (MBS) had wanted the courts to give a summary judgment in their suit against casino patron, Mr Lester Ong Boon Lin, 30, which would see the judgment ruled in their favour. Mr Ong allegedly owes MBS more than S$240,800.

During hearings in chamber on Friday, the High Court did not allow this application.

For Mr Ong to defend himself in court, he must first put up the full amount he allegedly owes the casino.

Mr Ong can either pay the money to the courts or put it up as a banker's guarantee. And he will have to do so by April 26.

MediaCorp first reported that MBS was suing Mr Ong for alleged non-payment of the money in credit extension.

MBS claims that he is a premium player while he disputes this and the legality of the credit extension. The casino had also earlier applied to seal court documents for this case but this application is still pending.

Mr Ong's lawyer, Mr Sunil Singh Panoo, of Dhillon & Partners said that his client is currently overseas.

The case started, last October, when MBS first filed its writ of summons against Mr Ong after failing to get payment from him.

Previous media reports said Mr Ong's father is the owner of a famous nasi lemak business and that Mr Ong had lost S$1.8 million while gambling.

 

[Yip Hon]

Gambling debt dispute puts spotlight on casinos' credit policy

(SINGAPORE) A dispute between Marina Bay Sands and the son of Chong Pang Nasi Lemak franchise's owner over the legality of a $250,000 gambling debt has thrown up more questions on credit extension by casinos.
Grace Leong

Wed, Jan 26, 2011
The Business Times

(SINGAPORE) A dispute between Marina Bay Sands and the son of Chong Pang Nasi Lemak franchise's owner over the legality of a $250,000 gambling debt has thrown up more questions on credit extension by casinos.

Lester Ong Boon Lin claims his gambling debt is unenforceable at the time he was given the $250,000 credit line by the casino. This is because he says he wasn't a premium player as he had withdrawn his $100,000 deposit to buy gambling chips before the casino extended credit to him. As such, the marker, or casino debt, is deemed null and void under the Civil Law Act, he alleged.

But Marina Bay Sands, in affidavits filed earlier this month, sought to clarify its definition of 'premium player,' arguing that under the Casino Control (Credit) Regulations, Mr Ong remains qualified as a premium player for one year until April 30, or until MBS closes his deposit account.

The casino said its casino credit policy establishes that any patron who deposits $100,000 remains a premium player for one year even if he subsequently draws down on the $100,000 he had deposited.

It said its credit policy is part of a system of internal controls and administrative and accounting procedures approved by the Casino Regulatory Authority.

MBS, in the affidavits, said Mr Ong continued to play at its casino from June through August 2010 despite refusing to pay his debt. His deposit account is still maintained by MBS, but no further credit is being extended to him, the casino said.

But Mr Ong challenged the validity of the casino's credit policy.

'They seem to say that the moment $100,000 is deposited, the patron is qualified as a premium player for one year. But that is not what the Casino Control Regulations 2010 says,' Mr Ong said in an affidavit filed last week.

'Regulation 4 of the Casino Control (Credit) Regulations states that the maximum period of play can be up to one year. This would mean there could be a minimum period of play of up to one day or even one minute,' he said.

'Regulation 4 even envisages that there is an expiry of a period of play. If a period of play automatically lasts for a year, this could have been clearly stated,' Mr Ong said.

According to the regulations, an individual remains qualified as a premium player if upon the expiry of a period of play and before subsequent commencement of a period of play in the casino, there is a credit balance of not less than $100,000 in his casino deposit account.

Mr Ong also claims that the credit extended to him was unsolicited, which violates gaming laws.

In his affidavit, Mr Ong said an MBS marketing host had approached him to sign up for credit on May 1 when he was losing a lot of money.

'It was at this time when I was at the table gambling, when one of the patron's credit line of $250,000 was approved and the casino staff had placed $250,000 worth of chips in front of us all. The said patron was told that he could start gambling with the said chips. Those at the table, including me, were awestruck by this,' Mr Ong said.

'It did not help that I was losing money at this point in time. As such, the sight of the chips, together with the MBS marketing host's sales pitch on Marina Bay Sands' credit line, enticed me to sign up for the credit application,' he said.

Oncu Cifteler, executive director of casino finance for Marina Bay Sands, in his affidavit said Mr Ong didn't identify the person who allegedly offered him credit prior to his application.

'In any case, any offer of credit without application by the customer and an analysis of his credit worthiness would be unauthorised,' Mr Cifteler said.

He said he believes Mr Ong's allegations that he isn't a premium player and that credit extended to him was unsolicited are 'simply attempts to delay or evade repayment of his debt.'

Mr Ong also claimed he had owed money, at one point, to junkets operating at Marina Bay Sands at the time he accepted the casino's credit line.

'I had presumed these people were legal junkets. However, it has come to my attention that the Casino Regulatory Authority had not issued any junket licence,' Mr Ong said in the affidavit. 'The way the said junkets were operating at Marina Bay Sands was similar to legal junkets I have seen operating in overseas casinos.'

When asked if junkets are legally operating at the casino, a Marina Bay Sands spokesperson, said: 'As this case is the subject of an ongoing legal matter, it would be inappropriate to comment further at this time.'

 

[Yip Hon]

>



http://www.singaporelawwatch.sg/rem...ml?utm_source=rss+subscription&utm_medium=rss

Marina Bay Sands Pte Ltd v Ong Boon Lin Lester
[2011] SGHC 73​

Suit No : Suit No 792 of 2010 (Summons No 88 of 2011)

Decision Date : 30 March 2011

Court : High Court

Coram : Shaun Leong Li Shiong AR

Counsel : Surenthiraraj s/o Saunthararajah @ S.Suressh
and Toh Wei Yi (Harry Elias Partnership LLP) for the plaintiff;
Sunil Singh Panoo (Dhillon & Partners) for the defendant.




Subject Area / Catchwords



Statutory Interpretation – Construction of Statute – Casino Control Act (Cap 33A, 2007 Rev Ed) (“CCA”) – Whether the debtor was a premium player under the CCA – Whether the debtor’s play had expired by the time of credit extension – Allegation of unsolicited offer of credit




Judgment



30 March 2011




Shaun Leong Li Shiong AR:



Introduction



1 The plaintiff (referred to in this decision as “the Casino” in some instances) granted the defendant, a Singaporean, credit and issued him $250,000 worth of chips under credit for play at the plaintiff’s premises. Sometime after the chips were fully utilised, the plaintiff claimed for the sums owed. The defendant however, disputes the enforceability of the debt. He claims that he was not a premium player at the time when credit was extended to him. As s108(7) of the Casino Control Act (Cap 33A, 2007 Rev Ed) (“CCA”) mandates that the plaintiff can extend credit to a Singapore citizen only if he/she is a premium player, the defendant alleged that the credit extended to him was an unenforceable moneylending transaction under s108(9) of the CCA read with s14(2) of the Moneylenders Act (Cap 188). The present dispute therefore centered upon the question of whether the defendant was a premium player as defined under the Casino Control Act (Cap 33A, 2007 Rev Ed) (“CCA”) and the Casino Control (Credit) Regulations 2010 (“Credit Regulations”) at the time when credit was extended to him. The plaintiff applied for summary judgment. I granted leave to defend upon the condition that the defendant pay into court, or provide security by way of a banker’s guarantee, the full amount of the claim (ie the sum of $240,868.00 with interest on the said sum at the annual rate of 12% from 14 August 2010 until 25 March 2011 (without prejudice to the plaintiff’s claimed sums as stated in its pleadings)), by 26 April 2011, failing which the plaintiff would be at liberty to enter final judgment against the defendant. I now set out the reasons for my decision.



The Facts



2 According to the defendant, he visited the plaintiff’s premises to gamble soon after it was opened for business.[note: 1] After some time, the defendant registered to be a member of the Paiza club on 30 April 2010[note: 2] (gaming date[note: 3]), which is the plaintiff’s exclusive club for its valued patrons. The defendant also enrolled in the Non-Negotiable Chip Rolling Program.[note: 4]

3 On 1 May 2010, at around 5.12am, the defendant paid the plaintiff a sum of $100,000 in cash, and a deposit account was opened in the defendant’s name where the said sum was deposited into the account. According to the plaintiff, this qualified the defendant as a premium player defined under the Casino Control Act (Cap 33A, 2007 Rev Ed) (“CCA”) and the Casino Control (Credit) Regulations 2010 (“Credit Regulations”). The plaintiff issued $100,000 non-negotiable chips (“NN1 chips”) to the defendant about two minutes later, at around 5.14am. NN1 chips are issued to patrons enrolled in the Non-Negotiable Chip Rolling program; where the patron puts down his bet using the NN1 chips, and any amount that he wins on the bet is paid to him in cash. The net rolling turnover is the difference between the total NN1 chips that were issued to the patron and the total NN1 chips that were returned at the time of settlement after a stipulated maximum period of play. The patron earns a rolling commission on the net rolling turnover which is either paid to the patron by cash, or cash equivalent, or by credit into his deposit account. Shortly after the NN1 chips were issued, the defendant commenced play at around 5.35am.[note: 5] The defendant emphasized on the fact that his money balance in the deposit account was “nil” at this point in time when he commenced play. After a few hours, at around 8.09am, the defendant exchanged 75,000 NN1 chips and 25,000 cash chips for $100,000 cash.

4 Subsequently, the defendant applied for credit from the plaintiff. Sometime between 11pm on 1 May 2010 to 5.59am on 2 May 2010, the defendant signed and submitted the plaintiff’s Credit/Cheque Cashing Agreement (“Credit Agreement”) to apply for credit of $1m.[note: 6] This was admitted to by the defendant (save that the defendant does not recall the exact time in which this took place).[note: 7] The defendant however, claims that the plaintiff made an unsolicited offer of credit to the defendant.[note: 8] He claimed that he applied for credit because he was enticed to do so by one of the plaintiff’s marketing hosts.[note: 9] After the defendant had applied for credit, he returned to continue his play, with a series of credits and debits made on his deposit account.

5 Although the defendant applied for credit of $1m, the plaintiff approved his credit for a lesser amount of $250,000. The approval was granted on 3 May 2010 at around 1.45am. Subsequently, the plaintiff issued $250,000 worth of NN1 chips on credit to the defendant at around 2.49am on the same day. The defendant emphasized on the fact that the money balance in his deposit account at this point in time was a “nil” balance. The chips issued on credit were fully utilized by a few days later on 9 May 2010. The defendant provided the plaintiff a cheque made payable to the plaintiff, as security for the plaintiff’s issuance of credit to the defendant.

6 On 13 May 2010, the date when the Non-Negotiable Chip Rolling Program expired, the defendant earned an overall rolling commission of $9,132.00. This amount was credited to the defendant’s deposit account. As such, after this amount was set off from the original principal amount owed (which was the amount of $250,000), the total sum owed to the defendant was $240,868.00. Between 17 June 2010 and 8 July 2010, the plaintiff contacted the defendant to make payment of the debt owed. The defendant would inform the plaintiff’s representative that he would try to make payment. Subsequently, the plaintiff presented the defendant’s cheque on 9 July 2010, but the cheque was dishonoured and returned on 12 July 2010.



http://www.singaporelawwatch.sg/rem...ml?utm_source=rss+subscription&utm_medium=rss

 

[ahleebabasingaporethief]

If MBS lose this case will they call in their "ENFORCERS"?

Will this be the first casino related "feet chained in concrete" case at the bottom of macritchie reservoir?

Or is it a case of too much hollywood movies?

 

[Robert Half]

If MBS lose this case will they call in their "ENFORCERS"?

Will this be the first casino related "feet chained in concrete" case at the bottom of macritchie reservoir?

Or is it a case of too much hollywood movies?

I hope MBS win and Mr Ong has to pay all damages including the $248k he owed