When someone shares with you something of value, you have an obligation to share it with others.
Tuesday, 2 February 2010
Court adds to big gambler’s losing streak
The Court of Appeal yesterday declined in particularly derisive fashion to hear the case of a high roller who was ordered to pay US$3 million in gambling debts to casino operator Wynn Las Vegas.
The Court of Appeal yesterday declined in particularly derisive fashion to hear the case of a high roller who was ordered to pay US$3 million in gambling debts to casino operator Wynn Las Vegas.
Arguments by lawyers representing gambler Henry Mong Hengli - including that he did not understand English well enough to read an alleged credit agreement he signed at the casino - were dismissed in incredulous terms by the two-judge appellate court.
“I can only marvel at the nerve that you’ve got coming to this court with a case like this. It’s hopeless, isn’t it?” said Mr. Justice Anthony Rogers, the vice-president of the Court of Appeal.
Mong’s lawyers said he admits to gambling US$3 million he was loaned by the Wynn Las Vegas and losing the entire sum during a session that began on August 5, 2008. He also admits to not paying the debt.
Wynn Las Vegas filed a lawsuit against Mong in January of last year. In August, Deputy High Court Judge Ian Carlson ruled in favour of the casino, ordering Mong to pay the US$3 million plus 18 per cent annual interest, in addition to legal costs.
In seeking to appeal the judgment, Mong’s lawyers said yesterday that on arrival at the Wynn Las Vegas in 2008 their client was escorted to a suite and asked to sign two documents. The first was a hotel check-in form and the second, Mong believed, was “likely” a credit agreement.
Lawyers for the casino had said no such credit agreement existed, and that instead it advanced him a loan under an older credit agreement that Mong had signed in 2007.
But Mong’s lawyers said he did not understand English very well so was unsure what he signed during the 2008 visit to the casino.
“What on earth do you think it said?” Rogers asked Mong’s lawyers. “That he can go downstairs and borrow US$3 million and not pay it back?
“These casinos aren’t exactly Father Christmas incarnate, are they?” he continued, saying that if the 2007 credit agreement was valid, it was unlikely that any subsequent agreement Mong may or may not have signed would have been less valid.
“It’s not likely they drew up another agreement in 2008 that shoots themselves in the foot,” he said.
Days before arriving at the Wynn Las Vegas Mong gambled at the Nevada casino’s sister property, the Wynn Macau, where he borrowed and lost HK$30 million (US$3.85 million). That debt is subject to a separate lawsuit filed against Mong by Wynn Resorts (Macau). That hearing concluded in September and is awaiting judgment.
“This was what might colloquially be called a ‘double or quits’ operation,” Rogers said yesterday. After losing in Macau, Mong travelled to Las Vegas where “in fact he doubled his losses”.
1 comment:
Court adds to big gambler’s losing streak
Neil Gough
29 January 2010
The Court of Appeal yesterday declined in particularly derisive fashion to hear the case of a high roller who was ordered to pay US$3 million in gambling debts to casino operator Wynn Las Vegas.
Arguments by lawyers representing gambler Henry Mong Hengli - including that he did not understand English well enough to read an alleged credit agreement he signed at the casino - were dismissed in incredulous terms by the two-judge appellate court.
“I can only marvel at the nerve that you’ve got coming to this court with a case like this. It’s hopeless, isn’t it?” said Mr. Justice Anthony Rogers, the vice-president of the Court of Appeal.
Mong’s lawyers said he admits to gambling US$3 million he was loaned by the Wynn Las Vegas and losing the entire sum during a session that began on August 5, 2008. He also admits to not paying the debt.
Wynn Las Vegas filed a lawsuit against Mong in January of last year. In August, Deputy High Court Judge Ian Carlson ruled in favour of the casino, ordering Mong to pay the US$3 million plus 18 per cent annual interest, in addition to legal costs.
In seeking to appeal the judgment, Mong’s lawyers said yesterday that on arrival at the Wynn Las Vegas in 2008 their client was escorted to a suite and asked to sign two documents. The first was a hotel check-in form and the second, Mong believed, was “likely” a credit agreement.
Lawyers for the casino had said no such credit agreement existed, and that instead it advanced him a loan under an older credit agreement that Mong had signed in 2007.
But Mong’s lawyers said he did not understand English very well so was unsure what he signed during the 2008 visit to the casino.
“What on earth do you think it said?” Rogers asked Mong’s lawyers. “That he can go downstairs and borrow US$3 million and not pay it back?
“These casinos aren’t exactly Father Christmas incarnate, are they?” he continued, saying that if the 2007 credit agreement was valid, it was unlikely that any subsequent agreement Mong may or may not have signed would have been less valid.
“It’s not likely they drew up another agreement in 2008 that shoots themselves in the foot,” he said.
Days before arriving at the Wynn Las Vegas Mong gambled at the Nevada casino’s sister property, the Wynn Macau, where he borrowed and lost HK$30 million (US$3.85 million). That debt is subject to a separate lawsuit filed against Mong by Wynn Resorts (Macau). That hearing concluded in September and is awaiting judgment.
“This was what might colloquially be called a ‘double or quits’ operation,” Rogers said yesterday. After losing in Macau, Mong travelled to Las Vegas where “in fact he doubled his losses”.
Post a Comment