Judge rules in Ivey/Borgata case (1 Viewer)

I hated these rulings from minute one. I feel once a casino employee agreed to requests and conditions, the results of the game should have rightfully been the liability of the casino. This is like “takebacks” to the extreme. There are consequences to the casino’s action or lack thereof. However, going forward, casino employees should be smart or trained enough to ask a boss if they can and should fulfill requests that may affect gameplay before doing so. The legal action alone should put casinos on notice, closing the loopholes and ambiguousness of this sort of acquiescence for the future. This specific decision against Ivey just doesn’t seem right. The judge might have stated that his findings uphold those of the lower court’s and the casino must do better in the future as well as be protected better legally, but that in this instance they must pay for their lapses. You fuck up, you pay and fix it so you don’t fuck up again.
 
Link to the Supreme Court details page, with a full-text opinion and a press summary.

Tip o' the cap to Doug Polk on Twitter.

REASONS FOR THE JUDGMENT

It was common ground that the parties’ contract for betting contained an implied term that neither of them will cheat. It would be unwise to attempt a definition of cheating. Its essentials normally involve a deliberate act designed to gain an advantage in the play which is objectively improper given the parameters and rules of the game in question. What amounts to cheating is a jury question. Dishonesty is not a concept that would bring clarity or certainty to a jury’s assessment of whether certain behaviour is or is not cheating.

It is an essential element of Punto Banco that it is a game of pure chance. Mr Ivey staged a carefully planned and executed sting. If he had secretly gained access to the shoe of cards and personally re-arranged them that would be considered cheating. He accomplished the same results by directing the actions of the croupier and tricking her into thinking that what she did was irrelevant. Mr Ivey’s actions were positive steps to fix the deck and therefore constituted cheating.

Dishonesty is included in the definition of some but not all acquisitive criminal offences. R v Ghosh introduced a two-stage test for dishonesty for a jury to apply, with a subjective second leg. Firstly, the jury must ask whether in its judgment the conduct complained of was dishonest by the lay objective standards of ordinary reasonable and honest people. If the answer is no, that disposes of the case in favour of the defendant. But if the answer is yes, it must ask, secondly, whether the defendant must have realised that ordinary honest people would so regard his behaviour as dishonest, and he is to be convicted only if the answer to that second question is yes. However, the second leg of the rule adopted in Ghosh has serious problems. The principal objection is that the less a defendant’s standards conform to society’s expectations, the less likely they are to be held criminally responsible for their behaviour. The law should not excuse those who make a mistake about contemporary standards of honesty, a purpose of the criminal law is to set acceptable standards of behaviour.

In civil actions the law has settled on an objective test of dishonesty. There can be no logical or principled basis for the meaning of dishonesty to differ according to whether it arises in a civil action or a criminal prosecution. The second leg of the test propounded in Ghosh does not correctly represent the law and directions based upon it ought no longer to be given. The test of dishonesty is that used in civil actions. The fact-finding tribunal must ascertain (subjectively) the actual state of the individual’s knowledge or belief as to the facts and then determine whether his conduct was honest or dishonest by the (objective) standards of ordinary decent people. There is no requirement that the defendant must appreciate that what he has done is, by those standards, dishonest.

If cheating at gambling required an additional legal element of dishonesty, it would be satisfied in this case.
 
Ok so dumb aussie here


so i go to a casino where every game is designed for me to lose.

then i find a way to win,

and because i win against a game which (by design) to mke me lose i'm taken to court.

Hmm
 
Ok so dumb aussie here


so i go to a casino where every game is designed for me to lose.

then i find a way to win,

and because i win against a game which (by design) to mke me lose i'm taken to court.

Hmm

You forgot the part about after finding a way to win, the casino agreed to your terms (both the deck and turning certain cards).

If they still win, they keep your money. If they lose, they sue to get your money back.
 
Pretty sure Ivey still hasn't paid Borgata the judgement yet, and isn't showing signs that he's likely to do so. Borgata now trying to go after his assets in Nevada. Will be really interesting to see what Ivey does. I personally think he was in the right, but I'm not sure what options he really has here.

It could also be revealing about his net worth. I've seen estimates of around $100 million, but maybe not very liquid.
 

Create an account or login to comment

You must be a member in order to leave a comment

Create account

Create an account and join our community. It's easy!

Log in

Already have an account? Log in here.

Back
Top Bottom