Legal Opinion - I. Nelson Rose

s163999

Dormant account
Joined
Jan 31, 2007
Location
United States
Thought this might be of some interest. This from an interview Interactive Gaming News did with I. Nelson Rose, a gambling law authority in the United States.

"The dangerous situation for the players is that gambling debts are normally not collectible, so if the government doesn't force the return, it's possible that they won't get the money back. It's not fraud; it wasn't like Neteller took the money with no intention of returning it. Neteller, BetonSports or any other operatorI don't think they would do thiscould say, 'Hey, it's a gambling debt. We don't have to pay. Sorry.'

"It goes back to The Statute of Anne (1710), who was Queen Anne of England. The law that came out of Parliament was that gambling debts are not collectible. The reason is that gambling violates public policy, which is still the law of the English speaking world today, including Nevada. Gambling violates public policy, and the rights to gamble legally are mere exceptions, strictly construedlimited. So, when a gambling case comes up in front of the court, the court says, 'We're not going to dirty our hands with this. We'll leave the parties as we find them.'

"There's a similar case called the Highwaymen's Case, where one robber sued another robber for refusing to share the loot. The court said, 'We're not going to enforce your contract. In fact, we're going to see if we can get you hanged for the crime.' This is the law of the United States. For example, gambling debts in Nevada are not collectible in court. If a casino refuses to pay youI was involved in this. I had a 19 year old boy who Caesar's refused to pay because he was under 21. So, his lawyer sued, and I said, 'You can't sue,' and the court threw it out. You can make it a count of fraud; fraud is different. But for breach of contract, no, gambling debts are not collectible in Nevada.

"Now, the casinos have enough political power that they got a statute passed saying that a casino can sue a player, but a player can still not sue a casino. All you can do is make a complaint in front of the administrator, the gaming control board. With regulated businesses, even with Internet sites that are licensed, maybe you can make a complaint where they're licensed. But go into any court into the United States and they're most likely going to say that it's a gambling debt case."
 

lojo

Banned User - repetitive violations of <a href="ht
Joined
Jan 18, 2007
Location
USA
If case law is based on this, well... A class action suit is in order.

I absolutely respect Mr. Rose' opinion. But look at his opinion as it relates to the c*pher thread! F*k that.

Maybe after all is said and done we yanks are lucky to have a conservative federal bench. All we have to do is keep America, America long enough for these cases to face justice. The people on the bench for the forseable future would NOT allow Nevada case law (nor the statute of the Queen) to determine the outcome of the potential neteller case (except in certain jurisdictions where players were breaking the law)

Nelson, my good man, this does not apply, but a million thanks the OP for showing us the brilliant kepler-esque conjecture that would be faced if people actually sought relief.
 

EasyRhino

Dormant account
Joined
Sep 17, 2006
Location
San Diego
Actually, it sounds like BS. Nevada casinos have figured out a way to run credit markers against a player's bank account, and once that bounces, it's considered to be fraud by the player. Thus, gambling debts really are collectible, at least by the casinos.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top