![]() ![]() After investigation by the local casino regulatory authority (DICJ), the case was dismissed. ![]() Is there any precedence in other jurisdictions on such cases? In Macau (year 2007) one of the casinos faced the same claim by a slot patron who “striked” a top prize of HK$10 million. This case is now been referred to the CRA (Casino Regulatory authority) for investigation. The patron ( a woman aged 58) refused to accept such a deal and insisted on the SGD416,000 that was indicated by the machine.Ĭan this casino patron claims for the stated (winning) prize on the basis of “game integrity” and casino compliance? Or, put it the other way, can the casino lawfully deny the patron on the cash bonus (SGD416,000) stated on the machine, on the ground of machine malfunctioning? Therefore, the total winning prize for this patron is SGD308,962. The casino claimed that the machine was capped at a maximum payout of SGD50,000 in cash and with additional prize of a sport car worth SGD258,962 if the winner were to sell back to the casino. Apparently the casino manager told the patron that the slot machine was malfunctioning. ![]() The Singapore local news The Straits Times reported on 22nd Oct 2011 (Sat) that a woman casino patron at Marina Bay Sands Casino was denied of her big prize slot (Jackpot) win amounting to SGD416,000 in cash. Why This Woman Casino Patron Was Denied Her Win? Special Commentary by: Professional Ground expert panel ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |