Our guest this week is Jeffrey Compton, the publisher of CDC Gaming Reports. We discuss current gambling in the news, including the Palms switch-over to a Stations property on Oct 1, Ted Forrest’s bad check troubles at the Wynn, and the upcoming G2E.
Click to listen. Alt click to download
Never miss another post
Excellent program with Jeffrey as always
His knowledge and the interaction with you two makes for a great show
Brian McAllister hasn’t been a guest in a long time.
Bob and Richard, do you have any update on Ted Forrest’s situation?
I have to disagree with Jeffrey Compton’s mention of the Uniform Commercial Code as a reason for disregarding whatever the Wynn knew about Forrest’s financial condition upon issuing the marker. The U.C.C. isn’t a feature of the criminal statutes in Nevada or anywhere. The U.C.C. is a set of rules that determines civil liability–which is something Forrest has always admitted to.
Nevada’s interpretation of markers and the bad check laws is sleazy as hell. The traditional definition of the criminal offense of passing a bad check has been to get something of value by leading the recipient of the check to believe that you had sufficient funds to cover the check, when in fact you didn’t. There have long been offenses defined for related misconduct like stopping payment in bad faith, or closing the bank account to avoid making payment. These, too, cover what is plainly fraudulent conduct under the common understanding of that phrase.
Nevada is the only place I know where you can be criminally prosecuted for giving a check (or marker, which today is always in the form of a check) which by agreement will not be deposited or drawn upon until some later date, when the recipient KNOWS that you don’t have money in the bank account to cover it, and are just promising to come up with money to cover it in the future. CASINOS GIVE CREDIT BASED ON SUCH PROMISES, HAVING NO ACTUAL COLLATERAL, ALL THE TIME. CUSTOMERS HARDLY EVER HAVE ENOUGH MONEY IN THE BANK TO COVER MARKERS WHEN THEY TAKE THEM OUT. Otherwise, they wouldn’t need the markers. Nevada thus criminalizes merely being a debtor (to a casino, at any rate), and allows for no defense based on the knowledge of the parties or financial condition, including the IMPOSSIBILITY of payment. So Nevada actually has debtors’ prisons, something that hasn’t existed in any other state since the mid 19th century.
Nevada’s practice has nothing to do with the U.C.C., but is instead a twisted application of its bad check laws. It allows casinos to prey upon the desperate and the degenerate. In contrast, in most states gambling debts are not even civilly enforceable–AND THEY WERE NOT IN NEVADA until a few decades ago. The majority rule is a healthy approach. Money that people have in their hands feels more “real” than credit. They are more likely to think twice before getting out of control, and are more limited in the damage they can do to their future economic prospects.