VietNamNet Bridge – On the afternoon of January 7, the District 1 People's Court, HCM City made the final decision on the unprecedented lawsuit between the plaintiff - Mr. Sam Ly (Vietnamese American) and the defendant – Dai Duong JV (owner of the Sheraton Saigon Hotel).

Lawsuit asking for $55.5 million of gambling winnings unsolved


{keywords}



The lawsuit temporarily closed when the Dai Duong JV was ordered by the court to pay the plaintiff the amount of $55.542 million of gamble wins.
 
The Panel commented: Based on the case file, the developments at the trial and the testimony of the parties involved in the case, it is realized that the game machine No. 13 were legally imported by the defendant, which was also checked by the authorities before being put into use.

Joining the game is the player who gambles with the machine and no staff or any member of the club is not allowed to touch it. Therefore, this is a specialized game of chance.
 
At trial, the parties, witnesses confirmed that in his final play, Ly Sam was deducted $5 after he played on the losing of $299.5. Thus, the money and credit points shown on the screen at the moment was the cumulative results after Ly played the final turn.
 
At trial, the defendant and its lawyer said that the game machine No. 13 crashed, the screen blinked off then leading to the winning results for Ly. However, studies showed that the game machine No. 13 and the club’s regulations did not specify what the game machine problem is. The club could not prove that Ly Sam used hands to beat the machine nor Ly’s act on the machine to make the break. Therefore, there is no basis to accept the point of view of the defendant.
 
In addition, based on the screen photos provided by the parties, it is shown that the credit scores and the process of settling the case, the parties have acknowledged the credit point that Ly accumulated. The over $55 million that is converted by the machine fits the regulations on converting the credit score into money.
 
On the assessment results of the game machine manufacturer, the panel deemed that after the plaintiff demanded compensation, the defendant voluntarily removed the motherboard for checking without the agreement of the plaintiff and the supervision of the relevant agencies function is non-objective and not in accordance with law.

Moreover, this has made a losing ground to determine if it is the motherboard of the game machine 13 or not; the data in the machine is intact or has been changed, and the court could not assess it.
 
About the prize money, the defendant said with only 5 cents, the prize money could not be up to $55 million, but the defendant admitted that the game machine 13 was a new type high compensation rate. The defendant did not change the club rules, and did not re-register the specific compensation rate. When the incident occurred, the club staff did not fully explain to the plaintiff and did not show willingness to address the problem.
 
From the above assessment, the Panel stated to accept part of the request initiated by the plaintiff, and the Dai Duong JV is forced to pay to Ly Sam, $55,542,291.7.


{keywords}
Representatives of the plaintiff are happy after the trial.

 
Ly Sam wins the case so he does not have to pay court costs. The defendant is required to pay more than VND1.262 billion of charges. Mr. Ly Sam gets back more than VND500 million of advance payment of court fees.
 
The Panel rejected the plaintiff's request to force the defendant to pay more than $3.5 million in interest due to late payment because the plaintiff did not paid the court fee for the request, so the court did not accept the settlement.
 
The Panel also rejected the plaintiff's request for proposing the authorities to revoke the license or suspend the operation of 3 to 6 months of the club because the above requirements are not under the jurisdiction of the court.

Within 15 days, the plaintiff, the defendant, and persons with interests and obligations related to the case have the right to appeal.
 
Thus, if after 15 days the parties did not appeal, the judgment of the "unprecedented" case will have legal effect.
 
Mai Phuong