Dai Duong Joint Venture Company, which the District 1 People’s Court in Ho Chi Minh City ruled has to pay Ly Sam the amount he claimed he won while gambling, has cited the operational principles of casino game machines as the grounds for their refusal to pay.
>> 3 possible appeal outcomes in $55 mln jackpot case>> Losing party in $55 mln jackpot case to appeal>> Vietnamese-American wins $55 mln jackpot trial>> Vietnam casino refuses to pay $55 million prize
Yesterday, lawyers from Quoc Te Law Co., Ltd, which is defending Dai Duong, met with numerous reporters at the Palazzo Club in the Sheraton Hotel in HCMC’s District 1.
Reporters watched the club’s staff use several machines similar to machine no. 13, which Sam played on September 25, 2009, after which he claimed he had won a huge prize.
Machine no. 13 remains in the same spot as it was more than three years ago, but has not been used since the dispute between Sam and Dai Duong broke out, the club said.
The lawyers and the club’s staff provided reporters with an explanation of how the game machines operate.
Lawyer Ngo Thanh Tung, from the law company, said that each machine has a program that will display the amount the player won on the “win” panel.
Screen not responding
In case the winning amount is less than US$50,000, the winner can press the “take win” button, or press another button to continue playing. At that time, the wining amount will appear in the “credit” panel, which shows the player’s account.
In case the wining amount is more than $50,000, the screen will automatically not respond – at that time, the winner cannot press “take win” to put the prize into the “credit” panel.
Instead, a message will be shown on the screen, requesting that the winner contact the club’s staff to receive the prize.
Sam had once won $95,000, and followed the procedure described above, Tung said.
Therefore, the fact that Sam confirmed that he could press a button to continue playing after seeing the wining amount appear on the machine’s screen proves that a fault had occurred in the machine, Tung said.
Moreover, the amount of US$55,542,291.70, more than VND1,154 billion, had not appeared in the “win” panel, but was shown directly in the “credit” panel.
Therefore, Dai Duong could not accept such an amount because it went against the way the machines operate.
Preparation for appeal trial
In the trial conducted by the District 1 People’s Court that ended on January 7, Dai Duong had provided evidence to prove that game machine 13 was faulty, but the court rejected the claim.
The company, therefore, will continue trying to prove this in the upcoming appeal hearing, Tung said.
Dai Duong’s lawyers are gathering necessary evidence and will present it in the appeal trial.
Dai Duong will propose that the HCMC People’s Court invite representatives of the manufacturer of the game machine, an independent appraisal company, and experts on such machines to attend the appeal hearing.
Dai Duong will file its appeal to the court within the time limit of 12 days after the date the verdict was announced, lawyers said.
As previously reported, at the first instance trial the court rejected Dai Duong’s argument that the winning result was “invalid”due to “some fault” with the game machine.
The court said that the winning amount was shown on the screen, and that there was no error report issued by the machine. Therefore Dai Duong must pay the winning amount to Sam.
However, the court did not accept the plaintiff’s claim that he was owed interest worth US$3.5 million on the unpaid wining amount.