The world of casinos is a fascinating one. It features billionaires, Hollywood celebrities, and the average Joe. They all make their way to Vegas or Atlantic City for gambling in style with thousands of dollars on the line. Sometimes things go wrong though and these battles ensue as casino owners take legal action against individuals who cheat them out of millions.
In this article we’ll be looking at 3 different court cases that had major implications for gambling in the world. Gambling has always been popular and is often associated with wealth, but it wasn’t until recently that people began to gamble on a regular basis – thanks to new technology like smartphones and online gambling sites like BoVegas. Casinos are synonymous with glitz and glamor, which is what makes these casino court battles so interesting. There have been a number of high-profile cases involving famous casinos from around the world.
Case #1
Casinos are popular and exciting places, but sometimes the excitement goes too far. Casinos can be robbed or defrauded in various ways, with those involved resorting to legal battles that shake the world. These court cases show just how important casinos are for many people, not only for entertainment but also as a livelihood.
The case stems from a high-stakes game of Punto Banco at Crockfords casino in London back in 2012. When the casino refused to pay him his winnings, Ivey sued the establishment, claiming that they had used “tricks and devices” to prevent him from winning his bet. The judge’s ruling suggests that Ivey is unable to prove this claim.
Ultimately, the court ruled that Ivey was guilty of cheating. The judge in the case has agreed with Crockfords that Ivey used a technique called edge-sorting to win the game. In effect, this involves changing the pattern of play by asking dealers to rotate cards before they are dealt, identifying high value cards based on their position and presenting these for betting. This is legal in card games, but you’d probably fail the pub quiz on how it works. The judge found that Crockfords was “not liable” for breaching its contract by allowing Ivey to place bets on baccarat using skill. While the case centred on Mr Ivey’s use of particular ‘Edge Sorting’ techniques, the principle at play here is potentially much wider reaching. It’s about a player using their skills and familiarity with the game to gain an advantage over the house.
Ivey and his defense team failed to provide any evidence of either dishonesty or cheating on part of Crockfords casino. The judge in the case handed out £7.7 million in losses to Crockfords and ordered Ivey to pay damages of £1.7 million.
Case #2
It was a 41 year old Italian man who was playing at the Surrey-based online casino EuroBet when he triggered a £650,000 jackpot from an £18 bet wagered in a lottery in 2009. Even though the online casino initially congratulated Venturi on his jackpot win it later refused to pay out his winnings blaming the win on a computer glitch. After several rounds of legal battles and appeals by both parties, the case has finally come to an end: the court case ends in victory for online gambling site owners.
Case #3
In addition to the criminal charges, Hainz also sued his casinos for damages. He alleged that they had violated his fundamental right as a person in Switzerland to be free from compulsion and wanton exploitation. In 2006, he was awarded €8.5 million by the Zurich cantonal court, with another court ruling on appeal awarding him a total of €2.5 million in February 2008.
The European Court of Justice found that Hainz had the right to claim that he was denied a fair game of roulette, but could not sue on the grounds of the abuse. The judgment suggested that the practice of granting certain amounts of credit to gamblers might not be considered an abusive practice in itself. His strategy of attacking a monopolistic company on their home turf and with an inadequate legal system worked. He is quoted saying: “Casinos Austria is perfect for a lawsuit: bad laws, rich casino owners who don’t think much of the little man.”
In brief, this litigation is about the extent to which a dual-criminality clause can limit the reach of national court judgments. Mr. Hainz’ gambling, which was clearly illegal in Switzerland, was outside of the scope of the national-court’s jurisdiction (since the courts in question are located in Austria), but an award of damages for his gambling activities could have had a significant impact on both casinos’ business operations and their bottom line (since casinos are major money makers in their respective countries).
