My guess is the guy is some kind of a casino hustler:
https://www.reviewjournal.com/busine...s-say-2915742/
My guess is the guy is some kind of a casino hustler:
https://www.reviewjournal.com/busine...s-say-2915742/
According to the article he was trespassed for not paying for a drink.Quote:
Originally Posted by mickeycrimm
Casinos should always pay out jackpots that are won. A won jackpot doesn't belong to the casino, it belongs to the winning patron.
Based on that to deny payment for being banned is equivalent to paying for a sofa at a furniture store, the store discovers you were banned and then says they get to keep your money and not deliver the sofa.
I don't know of any other business that gets to claim they can keep someone's money just because they discovered the person was previously banned and it's not considered theft.
Interesting,
I’ve heard of some indian casinos refusing to pay & getting away with it, when the jackpot is on someone else's card.
I also recall a couple of stories about regulated casinos, outside of NV but I don’t recall where, maybe Maryland or Colorado refusing to pay jackpots when someone self excluded then came back in anyway & won, and If I recall I think they got away with it too.
Self excluded is different.Quote:
Originally Posted by DGenBen
It's usually codified in gambling statutes and regulations that jackpots won by a self-excluded person is forfeit.
This is because the payment itself would feed into the addiction. At any rate, the casino is within the law in those circumstances, in fact would generally violate the law by performing payout
obviously they should pay regardless. But if I'm getting the story correctly, it sounds like he had been in there multiple times and hit jackpots after he was 86ed? If so, I think that makes it a situation where he could claim the 86ing was lifted or void.Quote:
Originally Posted by DarkozSelf excluded is different.Quote:
Originally Posted by DGenBen
It's usually codified in gambling statutes and regulations that jackpots won by a self-excluded person is forfeit.
This is because the payment itself would feed into the addiction. At any rate, the casino is within the law in those circumstances, in fact would generally violate the law by performing payout
Not that checking IDs at the door would be good for APs, but if you’re not actually doing anything to enforce the self-exclusion/actually prevent the person from playing, then you’re just free rolling their jackpots.
"During public comment, Tomasso told Control Board members that Wilson found it more profitable to pay a misdemeanor fine and continue to gamble than to abide by a trespassing ban."
It's this statement that makes me think the guy is some kind of AP. What ploppie would find it "more profitable" to continue to gamble there and pay the fine?
Thanks for posting Mickey - I found this link at the bottom of that article.
https://tinyurl.com/2s37fexz
Why the fuck would you bar and tresspass a degenerate, losing gambler because off one lousy drink he/she stiffed you on?
Hiw can you stiff a casino on a drink anyway? Don’t Nevada casinos comp the drinks as long as you are gambling?Quote:
Originally Posted by jbjb
Did I miss something, was this in Nevada?Quote:
Originally Posted by DGenBenHiw can you stiff a casino on a drink anyway? Don’t Nevada casinos comp the drinks as long as you are gambling?Quote:
Originally Posted by jbjb
Yes, it was in Mesquite at Casablanca. I think it is owned by the Virgin River owners. It was a clicky little town when I was there 25 years ago. I know for sure vulturing has been going on there for many years.Quote:
Originally Posted by AxelWolfDid I miss something, was this in Nevada?Quote:
Originally Posted by DGenBenHiw can you stiff a casino on a drink anyway? Don’t Nevada casinos comp the drinks as long as you are gambling?Quote:
Originally Posted by jbjb
Some bars at the casino don't have games. I know an associate who prefers paying for her drinks because she wants the hard alcohol and the comp drinks she finds are watered down.Quote:
Originally Posted by DGenBenHiw can you stiff a casino on a drink anyway? Don’t Nevada casinos comp the drinks as long as you are gambling?Quote:
Originally Posted by jbjb
It would interesting to know what happens to the forfeit jackpot. Does the casino just keep it? Is it turned over to the state? Is the casino required to return to players by adding the money back to a progressive? I would think this is most likely.Quote:
Originally Posted by DarkozSelf excluded is different.Quote:
Originally Posted by DGenBen
It's usually codified in gambling statutes and regulations that jackpots won by a self-excluded person is forfeit.
This is because the payment itself would feed into the addiction. At any rate, the casino is within the law in those circumstances, in fact would generally violate the law by performing payout
I can't speak for every state but the few I have seen that's also codified in law. Forfeit money from self excluded winnings become donations to AA or gamblers anonymous and other designated type organizations.Quote:
Originally Posted by DGenBenIt would interesting to know what happens to the forfeit jackpot. Does the casino just keep it? Is it turned over to the state? Is the casino required to return to players by adding the money back to a progressive? I would think this is most likely.Quote:
Originally Posted by DarkozSelf excluded is different.Quote:
Originally Posted by DGenBen
It's usually codified in gambling statutes and regulations that jackpots won by a self-excluded person is forfeit.
This is because the payment itself would feed into the addiction. At any rate, the casino is within the law in those circumstances, in fact would generally violate the law by performing payout
Probably varies state to state but there is some measure of sanity in the decision
This thread reminds me of some recent issues.
---- situation 1
I got a buddy gambler who went from bust to 350k in about 3-4 years. He loves his cash and has it in a safe deposit. So all his money and life savings are in that box.
He unfortunately is dying. Upon his death - will the government confiscate it due to the illegality of having the cash in a box? Will the IRS confiscate it then release it after a tax attorney being hired?
It is going to be very hard to get this money to his daughter. His greed fucked him far more than helped him.
I'm not even sure you can open a bank account and deposit it??
Can you take 350k in cash that you can't document a source and deposit it in the bank account and pay taxes?
The best suggestion I heard was to take a trusted friend who isn't desperate for money. Put his name on the box too. That way it won't be owned by my friend with the cancer. Then at least his trusted friend can see about giving the daughter money appropriately.
--- situation 2
I have 40k I want to put in the bank. I reside legally in a state that has no real legal gambling. I withdrew ~44k in cash this year to have a bankroll. I have replenished it and then some. I don't want to end up paying taxes twice on the same money. The easiest thing to do is just put the money back into the bank account.
But I wonder how much of an issue it might be. I don't plan on saying I used it for gambling. I'll just say it was for personal loans that have been repaid. Would anyone expect this to be an issue? In the back of my head I am concerned simply because my business uses the same bank and repercussions are beyond just losing my personal checking account. This is BoA? I have capital one but that bank is so lowend. In addition BoA has a record of me withdrawing it this year... so I don't expect an issue.
I know people who regularly deposit it but they're out of Vegas and presumably are known as a gambler which is a thing in LV.
Thoughts?
Having cash in a box is not illegal.Quote:
Originally Posted by accountinquestion
People today are so damn paranoid about cash. Just deposit it in your account if you want to. The bank will do a CTR. CTRs don't go to the IRS. They go to FINCEN. It takes a lot of CTRs before they even become an issue to even justify a look see.Quote:
Originally Posted by accountinquestion
People's accounts get shut down because they are trying to use free checking accounts to handle a lot of in and out cash. Handling cash today costs banks money. The bank cancels the account after so many large cash transactions because otherwise they would be breaking the free checking contract. They simply use the right to refuse service based on management decision clause and close it.
If you have a lot of cash transactions you need a fee based account like business checking. You will pay 0.2-0.3% depending on your balance and other variables but you will not get your accounts shut down. Usually only on one way depending on the bank.
Situation 1: Does he have a will, giving it to his daughter?
To make it smooth, he should have a will, and let her know the situation and give her the safe's combination, assuming she can be trusted.
Upon his death she hires an attorney, probates the will and adminitster the estate with nonintervention powers; list the cash in the inventory of estate assets and at the end distribute it to herself as beneficiary.
There should be not federal estate tax due; as for a state one, it depends where the decedentl dies.
The cash would come to her tax free; I believe the estate has no legal obligation to notify the IRS of the source of the funds; the guy who won it should have paid taxes as he went along, and the IRS would want them paid IF they ever found out...
Thanks for the response. That’s very interesting. I never would have thought of that, but that is logical.Quote:
Originally Posted by DarkozI can't speak for every state but the few I have seen that's also codified in law. Forfeit money from self excluded winnings become donations to AA or gamblers anonymous and other designated type organizations.Quote:
Originally Posted by DGenBenIt would interesting to know what happens to the forfeit jackpot. Does the casino just keep it? Is it turned over to the state? Is the casino required to return to players by adding the money back to a progressive? I would think this is most likely.Quote:
Originally Posted by Darkoz
Probably varies state to state but there is some measure of sanity in the decision