020 7792 5649

Hi, How Can We Help You?

Cheating in Casinos Does Not Require Dishonesty Court of Appeal Rules

This is a very interesting case for all card counters out there. Using a tactic to gain an advantage at a Casino is judged to be unlawful. You do not have to be dishonest in the traditional sense (cheating), you just have to use a tactic to your advantage that the Casino is unaware of.

With all of the recent cases concerning Casino’s refusing to pay their customers, I am surprised that such venues are not facing a significant drop in the players.

In a decision of crucial importance to anyone involved in the gaming industry, the Court of Appeal has ruled that a professional card player who won £7.7 million at the baccarat table was cheating – despite the fact that he was not dishonest.

The player and an associate achieved the winnings by engaging in ‘edge sorting’, a technique which involves the exploitation of design irregularities on the backs of playing cards. He launched proceedings against the casino after it refused to pay him his winnings on the basis that he was a cheat.

There was no dispute that it was an implied term of the contract between the player and the casino that he would not cheat. However, he argued that, as a highly skilled player, he was engaged in a game of cat and mouse with the casino. Edge sorting should have been well known to the casino and it bore responsibility for taking steps to protect itself against it. His arguments, however, failed to persuade a judge, who found that he had cheated. Although he had not been subjectively dishonest, the casino was unaware of edge sorting and his use of the technique had unfairly altered the odds in his favour.

In rejecting his challenge to that ruling, the Court found by a majority that the criminal offence of cheating, contained within Section 42 of the Gambling Act 2005, does not require proof of subjective dishonesty or an intention to deceive. The casino was not aware that the player’s use of edge sorting was having a substantial effect on the odds in the game. The player had interfered with the process of the game and the fact that he did not view himself as cheating was not determinative.

Get legal advice

Complete the form below and we will be in touch to arrange a consultation.

Invalid Input
Invalid Input
Invalid Input
Invalid Input
Invalid Input
lrs logo 2016MLA 2017 18 Shortlisted 2

Want Selachii’s help?

Call us now

020 7792 5649

arrange a consultation

Accreditations

MLA 2017 18 Shortlisted 2