Irish Sports
Welcome to Live View – Take the tour to learn more
Start Tour
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
20 Mar 17
14:43
Joined:
Date Joined:
05 Jun 08
“no action shall lie for the recovery of any money or thing which is alleged to be won.”
There seem to be a few sideshows in this case that were apparently ruled irrelevant to the primacy of the foregoing.
There is no legal guarantee in Irish law that gamblers will be paid their winnings, a judge in the Circuit Civil Court has said.
Judge Francis Comerford made the ruling in an action brought by Sayed Mirwais against Automatic Amusements Ltd, which trades as D1 Casino, and also against casino director Michael Donnelly.
Mr Mirwais had claimed that D1 Casino, of Lower Dorset Street, Dublin, had refused to pay him €11,713 he had won after placing several bets on an automated roulette machine.
He said that on the night of March 2nd and 3rd, 2015, he first won about €7,500. When he sought to cash it out, he was given €2,500 in cash and €5,000 worth of chips, before being told to play more and that he would be paid at the end of the night.
The court heard that after he won a further €6,713, Mr Mirwais was told by a manager to cash out. When he went to the cashier counter he was told the casino had no more cash for the night but that he would be paid the following day. He had also been told that an engineer would later check the roulette machine.
Mr Mirwais (36), of St Mary’s Place, Phibsborough, Dublin, claimed the casino refused to pay him despite multiple requests.
Unfair practice
He claimed he was allowed to continue playing on the roulette machine in the hope he would lose and the casino had no intention of paying him if he won. He said it constituted an unfair commercial practice.
Counsel for the casino, which had delivered a full defence to Mr Mirwais’ claim, said there had been a “suspiciously high amount of money lost by the roulette machine”.
Mr Mirwais denied that he found a flaw in the machine which allowed him to play even though the screen indicated ‘no more bets’ could be placed. The casino also claimed that he had been “under observation”.
The casino alleged that Mr Mirwais changed the screen layout from single to double play mode in order to switch a bet which had been placed in a previous game, enabling him to place a bet when the roulette ball had already settled. It had been unaware of the malfunction of the machine.
Heavy loss
Mr Mirwais, an Afghan refugee who qualified as a doctor in his home country, had the night before the incident lost €9,000 in the same casino, the court heard. He said he had won the money “fairly and squarely.”
“When I was losing my money, the machine was ok and the casino was happy to take it, but when I won, they wanted to investigate,” he told the court.
Judge Comerford said one needs to have considerable trust to put a bet on an automated machine when one cannot see what is happening. The judge said that he had to rely on the Gaming and Lottery Act 1956 which states that “no action shall lie for the recovery of any money or thing which is alleged to be won.”
“If you happen to be too lucky while placing a bet or gambling, the person can simply say ‘no you’re not entitled to the money’. That is simply the law in Ireland,” the judge said.
He dismissed Mr Mirwais’ claim and refused an application by the casino for their legal costs on the basis that they had only furnished, by way of discovery, 10 minutes of CCTV footage of the night in question.
There seem to be a few sideshows in this case that were apparently ruled irrelevant to the primacy of the foregoing.
There is no legal guarantee in Irish law that gamblers will be paid their winnings, a judge in the Circuit Civil Court has said.
Judge Francis Comerford made the ruling in an action brought by Sayed Mirwais against Automatic Amusements Ltd, which trades as D1 Casino, and also against casino director Michael Donnelly.
Mr Mirwais had claimed that D1 Casino, of Lower Dorset Street, Dublin, had refused to pay him €11,713 he had won after placing several bets on an automated roulette machine.
He said that on the night of March 2nd and 3rd, 2015, he first won about €7,500. When he sought to cash it out, he was given €2,500 in cash and €5,000 worth of chips, before being told to play more and that he would be paid at the end of the night.
The court heard that after he won a further €6,713, Mr Mirwais was told by a manager to cash out. When he went to the cashier counter he was told the casino had no more cash for the night but that he would be paid the following day. He had also been told that an engineer would later check the roulette machine.
Mr Mirwais (36), of St Mary’s Place, Phibsborough, Dublin, claimed the casino refused to pay him despite multiple requests.
Unfair practice
He claimed he was allowed to continue playing on the roulette machine in the hope he would lose and the casino had no intention of paying him if he won. He said it constituted an unfair commercial practice.
Counsel for the casino, which had delivered a full defence to Mr Mirwais’ claim, said there had been a “suspiciously high amount of money lost by the roulette machine”.
Mr Mirwais denied that he found a flaw in the machine which allowed him to play even though the screen indicated ‘no more bets’ could be placed. The casino also claimed that he had been “under observation”.
The casino alleged that Mr Mirwais changed the screen layout from single to double play mode in order to switch a bet which had been placed in a previous game, enabling him to place a bet when the roulette ball had already settled. It had been unaware of the malfunction of the machine.
Heavy loss
Mr Mirwais, an Afghan refugee who qualified as a doctor in his home country, had the night before the incident lost €9,000 in the same casino, the court heard. He said he had won the money “fairly and squarely.”
“When I was losing my money, the machine was ok and the casino was happy to take it, but when I won, they wanted to investigate,” he told the court.
Judge Comerford said one needs to have considerable trust to put a bet on an automated machine when one cannot see what is happening. The judge said that he had to rely on the Gaming and Lottery Act 1956 which states that “no action shall lie for the recovery of any money or thing which is alleged to be won.”
“If you happen to be too lucky while placing a bet or gambling, the person can simply say ‘no you’re not entitled to the money’. That is simply the law in Ireland,” the judge said.
He dismissed Mr Mirwais’ claim and refused an application by the casino for their legal costs on the basis that they had only furnished, by way of discovery, 10 minutes of CCTV footage of the night in question.
Show More
Now that is worrying,especially for those drawn to gaming machines!.
This has been a renowned law in Ireland so the ruling is as expected.
"Those drawn to gaming machines" should be more concerned about throwing their money into something with a defined probability which is always in favour of of the house.
If he was able to override the machine, the €9,000 loss the previous night was hardly a decoy. Sounds more like a problem gambler who had a temporary good run
"Those drawn to gaming machines" should be more concerned about throwing their money into something with a defined probability which is always in favour of of the house.
If he was able to override the machine, the €9,000 loss the previous night was hardly a decoy. Sounds more like a problem gambler who had a temporary good run
If the machine was capable of sending him on a run to losing 9k, then it sounds reasonable that he could win 11k on it as well, presumably he was betting in the same pattern.
Hard lines, I've heard of that piece of the legislation alright, came up in a pub debate. Been with pals in these places watching them play cards for short spells, dodge as fck; big-time sledging as well going on which I was surprised at.
Hard lines, I've heard of that piece of the legislation alright, came up in a pub debate. Been with pals in these places watching them play cards for short spells, dodge as fck; big-time sledging as well going on which I was surprised at.
The law was originally brought in to stop bookmakers suing defaulting clients.
It stemmed also from a time when gambling was deemed a disreputable activity.
This company has a state licence,Mr Mirwais should have objected to their licence.
The onus would then be on them to prove he did something wrong.
In general these are horrible companies,not alone are the odds stacked massively against the punter when the miracle happens they cry foul.
Everything about these establishments is designed to ensnare the problem gambler.
These infernal machines are supposed to be illegal but seem to be in plenty of pubs,lookslike a blind eye is being turned to this illegal activity.
It stemmed also from a time when gambling was deemed a disreputable activity.
This company has a state licence,Mr Mirwais should have objected to their licence.
The onus would then be on them to prove he did something wrong.
In general these are horrible companies,not alone are the odds stacked massively against the punter when the miracle happens they cry foul.
Everything about these establishments is designed to ensnare the problem gambler.
These infernal machines are supposed to be illegal but seem to be in plenty of pubs,lookslike a blind eye is being turned to this illegal activity.
Its really difficult to know how the blatant abuse of casino-type games can he halted; they are appearing as wildman says in pubs but also in fast food outlets and even bookies shops-I watched a guy feed a poker machine for 30 minutes on Paddy's Day in an independent. And I see PP have a roulette spin every 5 minutes-no idea how this is allowed or tolerated.
No-one will take responsibility for enforcing the law of the land. A garda might act on complaint but rarely on own initiative. No kudos for a politician either so you just get the odd campaigning journalist.
I expect that objecting to the casino licence wouldn't get the punter his cash and the judge's comments seem fairly benign to the defendants without any question of ethical or moral behaviour involved.
The article suggests the complainant was a "refugee" so how he is gambling thousands of euros is anyone's guess. Who knows, he may have spotted a flaw in the system but its all very sordid.
No-one will take responsibility for enforcing the law of the land. A garda might act on complaint but rarely on own initiative. No kudos for a politician either so you just get the odd campaigning journalist.
I expect that objecting to the casino licence wouldn't get the punter his cash and the judge's comments seem fairly benign to the defendants without any question of ethical or moral behaviour involved.
The article suggests the complainant was a "refugee" so how he is gambling thousands of euros is anyone's guess. Who knows, he may have spotted a flaw in the system but its all very sordid.
Objecting to a licence or saying youre objecting can work. I know of such a case many years ago.
The State should issue licences with strict rules,especially gambling licences.
A complaint if upheld should lead to revocation of that licence.
How some bookmakers got licences in the past is a mystery to me.
I was in some booking offices in England recently and its depressing,no interest in racing anymore all that's going on is gentleman battering machines,one thing is certain none of them seem to enjoy doing it.
The new phenomenon is betting shops side by side to maximise their machines,I think its four per shop.
In a street in Leicester there is five betting shops in a row solely to accommodate machine gamblers.
I think the government there gets over a billion tax from those machines.
A complaint if upheld should lead to revocation of that licence.
How some bookmakers got licences in the past is a mystery to me.
I was in some booking offices in England recently and its depressing,no interest in racing anymore all that's going on is gentleman battering machines,one thing is certain none of them seem to enjoy doing it.
The new phenomenon is betting shops side by side to maximise their machines,I think its four per shop.
In a street in Leicester there is five betting shops in a row solely to accommodate machine gamblers.
I think the government there gets over a billion tax from those machines.
I remember reading a piece sometime ago that many betting offices are struggling to make money from normal sources but the 1 arm bandits are keeping many open with the healthy profit margins.
I think a law was passed in last 12 months you can only lose a max of something like 200 quid a day on betting office slots
Above case is a funny one. How many refugees carry 9k lose 9k and come back again with same resources. Many a employed man on a good wage hasn't that loot.
And the casino are as bad. You are not supposed to win- imagine betting 1/10 odds ews 1st two home. It's bent
I think a law was passed in last 12 months you can only lose a max of something like 200 quid a day on betting office slots
Above case is a funny one. How many refugees carry 9k lose 9k and come back again with same resources. Many a employed man on a good wage hasn't that loot.
And the casino are as bad. You are not supposed to win- imagine betting 1/10 odds ews 1st two home. It's bent
A huge sea change in modern day gambling is the lack of honour that has enveloped the big off course chains. Underhand tricks that even the filthiest scum would hardly contemplate, are now part and parcel of their make up.
The biggest culprits are the company who masquerade as some sort of punter friendly firm.
They have all the tricks, huge over rounds, frozen screens, dodgy rule 4s, enhancing horses that they know aren't fancied, manufacturing gambles, but the worst of all being telling you that your winning bet was 12 seconds late.
Vermin isn't even close.
The biggest culprits are the company who masquerade as some sort of punter friendly firm.
They have all the tricks, huge over rounds, frozen screens, dodgy rule 4s, enhancing horses that they know aren't fancied, manufacturing gambles, but the worst of all being telling you that your winning bet was 12 seconds late.
Vermin isn't even close.
In England, Ladbrokes no longer have shop managers.
Everyone is now on the same pay scale under the title of CSA.
No promotions exist and the staff don't receive training with regard base factors and settling.
If the computer goes down the cashier wont have an iota how to settle a bet and if EW or rule 4 queries arise they are lost.
The salary overheads are decreasing year on year.
Each FOBT takes on average over 30k clear.
Four per shop permitted.
The 800 metres rule does not apply anymore.
Everyone is now on the same pay scale under the title of CSA.
No promotions exist and the staff don't receive training with regard base factors and settling.
If the computer goes down the cashier wont have an iota how to settle a bet and if EW or rule 4 queries arise they are lost.
The salary overheads are decreasing year on year.
Each FOBT takes on average over 30k clear.
Four per shop permitted.
The 800 metres rule does not apply anymore.
That was my first thought,how is he able to gamble that much?
I honestly think goverments have a duty of care towards its citizens and they should be outlawed, you could argue everyone has free choice but the nature of the machines are designed to be addictive,the amount by playing any slot machine at max for even 60 seconds is substantial(i would guess up to a £100 a minute),they are even on this site and it actively tries to lure more in by the way of "free spins" in the guise of punter "promotions", the ads on tv are choc a block with firms trying to get mugs to sign up,no wonder you cannot beat a machine.
The fact the person lost 7k the night before would imo be also the crux point of the case,i think it is a very poor judgement, the greed wof the scum operators was shown up spectaculary when the shoe was on the other foot.
Goverments should act,at the very least limit them to a lot less stake as has been discussed with fobts,it doesn't do anything for society as they target the weak and vulnerable,the goverments have a duty,they try to do it with cigerettes and drink(failure) but zilch here.
I honestly think goverments have a duty of care towards its citizens and they should be outlawed, you could argue everyone has free choice but the nature of the machines are designed to be addictive,the amount by playing any slot machine at max for even 60 seconds is substantial(i would guess up to a £100 a minute),they are even on this site and it actively tries to lure more in by the way of "free spins" in the guise of punter "promotions", the ads on tv are choc a block with firms trying to get mugs to sign up,no wonder you cannot beat a machine.
The fact the person lost 7k the night before would imo be also the crux point of the case,i think it is a very poor judgement, the greed wof the scum operators was shown up spectaculary when the shoe was on the other foot.
Goverments should act,at the very least limit them to a lot less stake as has been discussed with fobts,it doesn't do anything for society as they target the weak and vulnerable,the goverments have a duty,they try to do it with cigerettes and drink(failure) but zilch here.
I used to play a bit of snooker from time to time in a Wicklow town establishment, in which there are many amusement machines! A mother and daughter play 2 bar machines non stop until their readies are gone , they then place reserved tickets on said machines until they find a few quid to play again ,which could be at least a few days later. I reckon the payout is less than 10%! They were and are continuously ridiculed by those working there. The rest of the gamers are made up of young Irish Monday dolers and many non-nationals , I now on principle,refuse to hit a few balls there anymore, it digusts me !
As said by a previous poster the "sharp practices being deployed by this punter friendly firm" is correct 100%,add in the each way terms that were being offered at the festival last week was skullduggery of the highest order.
Borneo
Was wondering do trainers and Dept vets go through the same criteria to get a licence.Would they have to be deemed as suitable by the local Super in the area the reside in.
Was wondering do trainers and Dept vets go through the same criteria to get a licence.Would they have to be deemed as suitable by the local Super in the area the reside in.
Post Your Reply
Please login to post a reply.
Wonder
Instance ID: 13539