bodyType

customContents

entityId

entityUuid

articlePageQuery

filter

article

articleBaseAdvertisingInfoArticle

articleListArticle

articleSeoArticle

helpersCheckIsPostiesArticle

hooksArticleAcknowledgementGateOverlayArticle

hooksTrackPageViewArticle

hooksContentInterestArticle

articleLinkingDataContent

articleSchemaContent

liveArticle

advertZone

sentiment

contentLock

topics

types

sections

moreOnThisArticles

urlAlias

commentCount

sponsorType

authorLocations

authors

paywallTypes

corrections

displaySlideShow

multimediaEmbed

printHeadline

seriesContainer

socialHeadline

headline

flag

firstTopic

glossary

flattenTypeIds

publishedDate

additionalInfoBoxes

images

image

relatedLinks

relatedNewsletters

__typename

createdDate

sponsor

factSheets

series

disableOffPlatformContent

published

updatedDate

summary

subHeadline

body

keywords

copyrighted

customTimezone

liveContents

SCMP Reporter

A HONG KONG gambler who lost more than US$2.4 million (HK$18.67 million) in a four-day spree at a Las Vegas casino launched an appeal yesterday after a court ordered him to repay the money.

  Wong Hon ran up the debt after obtaining credit from the Desert Inn Casino in February last year.

  It is the first such case to come before the Court of Appeal.

  Mr Wong is being sued by the Sheraton Desert Inn Corporation, which owns the casino.

   His counsel, Benjamin Chain, said the key question was whether the casino chips constituted a loan.

   Mr Chain argued even if the chips were a loan, the money could not be recovered because of the Gambling Act.

   The act says loans made for the purpose of gambling are not recognised in law.

   Wong hit a losing streak after the casino granted him credit between February 12 and 15 last year.

   He agrees he incurred gambling debts of US$2.4 million but does not accept the sum was a loan.

   Mr Chain said: 'The defendant submits there was no loan between the parties.

   'There is no question the casino ever lent money to Wong. What it did was to grant him credit, but that does not necessarily mean there was a loan.

   'If they had actually given him cash, it would be a loan, but the chips are only tokens. It is a method for recording winnings and losses.

   'It is wholly unrealistic to invent a fiction that what the plaintiff did was to lend money to Wong who then used the money to purchase the chips.'    But Joseph Fok, for the casino, said the transaction did amount to a loan.

   'At the point when the casino gives the chips to gamble, a debt is created. The exchange of chips for the marker is an IOU.'    The challenge came after Wong failed to get the order overturned at a High Court hearing behind closed doors last March.

   He is now appealing against Mr Justice Findlay's decision to dismiss his previous appeal.

   The court reserved its judgment. Wong was not at yesterday's hearing.



Gambler fights $18m debt ruling