5 ms·

Found this the most interesting part of the article: > Nevada treats unpaid gambling debt as a criminal matter handled by the District Attorney's bad-checks un

Found this the most interesting part of the article: > Nevada treats unpaid gambling debt as a criminal matter handled by the District Attorney's bad-checks unit. Most defendants agree to pay the debt through a payment plan before charges are filed, with around 10% tacked on to fund the D.A. unit. Clark County, which encompasses Las Vegas, prosecutes roughly 200 cases involving gambling debts a month, says Bernie Zadrowski, who runs the bad-checks unit. Unpaid gambling debts seems like it'd be a civil matter to me - pretty crazy that it's criminal, and defendants pay an additional 10% to the state on top of it.

kalid 17y ago
That is quite amazing that it wouldn't be treated in civil court or as a bankruptcy -- I wonder how many senators had to be bought to make that happen :).
- gojomo 17y ago
  Gambling is a such giant part of the Nevada economy, it's not even necessary to "buy" legislators in any backroom way -- voters and legislators can internalize casino preferences because they all prosper together.
ryanwaggoner 17y ago
Agreed, just came here to post that. What's particularly amazing is that the casino might not actually be out any money, depending on what you were playing. In any other state, you can borrow $1000 from a bank, burn it, and then face the consequences to your credit score, bankruptcy, etc. But apparently in Nevada, if I borrow $1000 from the casino, pour it down their slot machines, and then walk out without paying, they can have me prosecuted and jailed, even though they got their $1000 back. Bizarre.
- sokoloff 17y ago
  If you lent me $1000, and then offered me a fair coin flip for $1000, would the fact that you "won" the coin flip and I stiffed you for the $1000 I borrowed be adequate consolation? If so, can I borrow $1000 and do you have a quarter on you?
  - Confusion 17y ago
    That's something entirely different from what ryanwaggoner sketches. The point is whether this is a criminal or a civil case, not whether the casino should get their money back.
    - sokoloff 17y ago
      I don't think the example is actually that different. My response was to the point of "the casino might actually not be out any money". If the outcome of the wager (that the casino won and "kept" the money) is critical to determining how/whether a case is prosecuted, then you set the casinos up to be free-rolled, which is the point I was making with my coin-flip after loan analogy. The moment Ryan beats me in the coin flip, he's "earned" $1000. If the law differentiates at all whether he's entitled to be paid based on whether I moments earlier borrowed $1000 from him, then I have a free-roll. I borrow $1000 in cash, and bet $1000 in cash on heads. Heads, I win $1000, pay the loan off and walk out with my $1000 profit. Tails, I lose $1000, but I say "well, you have the money anyway, so you're not actually out anything" and walk away with no more and no less money than I started the day. Mathematically, that's the same as Ryan giving me $500 and us making a $500 wager on the coin. I wasn't trying to address whether it should be civil or criminal; I tend to agree it should be civil, but Nevada gets to make the rules for Nevada. I was merely pointing out that whether or not the casino "kept" the money that it beat the guy for is not relevant.
- gojomo 17y ago
  Casinos are an actuarial business. The relevant number is the weighted sum over all possible outcomes -- or similarly, the sum over all customers offered the same terms. So the casino is definitely "out the money" in your situation, because at some other table, they offered the eaxct same deal, aad there, the other customer won $1800, paid back the $1000, and walked out with $800. If the casino can't collect from the person who lost, their loan couldn't have been offered in the first place.

kalid 17y ago

That is quite amazing that it wouldn't be treated in civil court or as a bankruptcy -- I wonder how many senators had to be bought to make that happen :).

gojomo 17y ago
Gambling is a such giant part of the Nevada economy, it's not even necessary to "buy" legislators in any backroom way -- voters and legislators can internalize casino preferences because they all prosper together.

ryanwaggoner 17y ago

Agreed, just came here to post that. What's particularly amazing is that the casino might not actually be out any money, depending on what you were playing. In any other state, you can borrow $1000 from a bank, burn it, and then face the consequences to your credit score, bankruptcy, etc. But apparently in Nevada, if I borrow $1000 from the casino, pour it down their slot machines, and then walk out without paying, they can have me prosecuted and jailed, even though they got their $1000 back. Bizarre.

sokoloff 17y ago
If you lent me $1000, and then offered me a fair coin flip for $1000, would the fact that you "won" the coin flip and I stiffed you for the $1000 I borrowed be adequate consolation? If so, can I borrow $1000 and do you have a quarter on you?
- Confusion 17y ago
  That's something entirely different from what ryanwaggoner sketches. The point is whether this is a criminal or a civil case, not whether the casino should get their money back.
  - sokoloff 17y ago
    I don't think the example is actually that different. My response was to the point of "the casino might actually not be out any money". If the outcome of the wager (that the casino won and "kept" the money) is critical to determining how/whether a case is prosecuted, then you set the casinos up to be free-rolled, which is the point I was making with my coin-flip after loan analogy. The moment Ryan beats me in the coin flip, he's "earned" $1000. If the law differentiates at all whether he's entitled to be paid based on whether I moments earlier borrowed $1000 from him, then I have a free-roll. I borrow $1000 in cash, and bet $1000 in cash on heads. Heads, I win $1000, pay the loan off and walk out with my $1000 profit. Tails, I lose $1000, but I say "well, you have the money anyway, so you're not actually out anything" and walk away with no more and no less money than I started the day. Mathematically, that's the same as Ryan giving me $500 and us making a $500 wager on the coin. I wasn't trying to address whether it should be civil or criminal; I tend to agree it should be civil, but Nevada gets to make the rules for Nevada. I was merely pointing out that whether or not the casino "kept" the money that it beat the guy for is not relevant.
gojomo 17y ago
Casinos are an actuarial business. The relevant number is the weighted sum over all possible outcomes -- or similarly, the sum over all customers offered the same terms. So the casino is definitely "out the money" in your situation, because at some other table, they offered the eaxct same deal, aad there, the other customer won $1800, paid back the $1000, and walked out with $800. If the casino can't collect from the person who lost, their loan couldn't have been offered in the first place.