Mr. Zahavi Says He Did Not Read the Fine Print on the Casino Markers
The Nevada Supreme Court denied an appeal by a Las Vegas high rollers who owes four Vegas casinos a combined $384 thousand in gambling debts. Harel Zahavi is a successful former ice cream mogul from Southern California. Mr. Zaravi was ordered to pay $379 thousand in restitution in 2011, thousand the interest on that amount has risen since then.
In the case, the gambler’s lawyer argued that a 20-year old gaming law was unfair. The law in question views those who don’t pay casino markers for gambling debts like it’s writing hot checks. Zahavi argued that markets should be seen as short-term business loans, instead. The high court of Nevada did not see it that way.
Challenged Hot Check Law
That order came from a Clark County judge, after Zahavi was convicted of 4 felony counts of passing a check without sufficient funds with the intent to defraud. In his appeal, Zahavi challenged a 1995 Nevada gaming law which allows casinos to pursue criminal charges in a county court, instead of a US district court. Because judges in the county court system ask for political contributions from local businesses, it is assumed such judges tend to be more sympathetic to local business owners.
The 1995 law is a model for other gambling jurisdictions across the United States, so it was unlikely that the appeal would result in a victory for the high roller. Thus, a Nevada state appeals court upheld the right of Las Vegas Strip casinos to turn to county prosecutors to pursue unpaid “markers”.
How Casino Markers Work
Most casino gamblers cannot play on credit. When a player gambles at a certain level (often $10,000) and can prove they have the assets to do so, that “high roller” is allowed to ask for casino credit. The player signs an IOU that he will repay any debt which is incurred.
Those IOUs are referred to in the gambling business as “markers”. Casino markers are treated as bad or hot checks under Nevada criminal law, and therefore are seen as crimes which can be prosecuted. Those who sign a marker and doesn’t repay it is viewed under the law the way someone signing a bad check would be. The law is meant to force a high stakes gambler to pay their debts. Under Zahavi’s interpretation of the law, a gambler who lost money could then declare bankruptcy and have the debt removed, as if it were a loan.
Business Loans or Gaming Debt?
Mr. Zahavi’s lawyers argued that the markers are short-term business loans. Their arguments rests on the logic that the casinos often hold the IOUs for several months before cashing them–therefore they are not standard personal checks.
Loan disputes are handled in civil courts. Bad checks are handled in the criminal courts. The distinction is a major one–the difference in a lost lawsuit and four felony convictions. In many cases, that difference is what forces deadbeat high rollers to pay their gaming debts, instead of deal with the consequences of major debt and bad credit.
Signed an IOU
Justices did not see it the way of the disgruntled high rollers, though. Court documents indicated that the Nevada justices judged that Harel Zahavi had signed a note saying “there were sufficient funds available such that the markers were payable upon demand and could be executed at any time”.
When he failed to pay those debts, the county court ruled that Harel Zahavi had committeed a crime. Thus, he faces a serious list of criminal charges. While he probably can clear those charges by paying his gaming debts, the high roller now will feel the pressure to do so.
Did Not Read Fine Print
Matthew Lay, a lawyer for Zahavi, told a criminal court in 2013 that his client had not read the fine print and he did not intend to deceive the various casinos: Caesars Palace, Hard Rock, the Palazzo, and the Venetian. The four casinos are the ones who took the former ice cream entrepreneur to court.
In ruling as they did, the Nevada Supreme Court essentially told Zahavi that ignorance of the law is no defense. Reading the fine print is always a good idea, but it is especially important when over $300,000 is on the line.
