Jump to content
  • Sign Up

Jackpot and you can't have it because you are only 16 ...


Should the girl (or her family) get the money?  

  1. 1. Should the girl (or her family) get the money?

    • Yes.
    • No.
    • I should get the money.
    • Oh I don't know.

Recommended Posts

Here is the news story -> http://www.thestandard.com.hk/news_detail.asp?pp_cat=11&art_id=38867&sid=12374652&con_type=1

Do you agree that the girl (or her family) should get the money? Personally I don't as she had broken the law in the first place and was so stupid to claim that she herself was the winner (but there were CCTVs anyways). But then the casino failed to bar her from getting into the casino so ...

What do you think?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In my personal opinion, I think the onus is on the casino to make sure that minors aren't admitted. One would assume that the public policy reason behind the law is to protect vulnerable people from the adverse social consequences of gambling, and to ensure that casinos don't take advantage of them (ie by making money from those who are vulnerable).* I don't think the casino should be able to have its cake and eat it too, by using the prohibition to justify not paying out an otherwise legitimate claim.

What the mother did in bringing her underage daughter to a casino is probably morally reprehensible, but I'm guessing the law doesn't extend to accompanying adults/guardians.

*I don't actually have any knowledge of Macau's laws, but in Australia, similar prohibitions against minors being on licensed premises or buying cigarettes, for example, are enforced against the licensed premises or shop which sold them the cigarettes, not the minor.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The premise should be responsible for not letting minors in, just as a tabacco shop is responsible for not selling tabacco to minors.

The law in the UK goes so far as making sure that you're punished if a burglar enters your house and accidentally injures himself (herself?) :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's true that the law was broken when an underaged person played the slot machines. But who is the custodian of this person? Her mother of course. So it's not unreasonable to say that the mother broke the law by allowing her daughter to play the slot machines.

However the casino or security personnel should have noticed un underaged person playing the slot machines. In addition to the mother's, it is their responsibility to prevent this from happening.

So both the mother and the casino are at fault. Maybe they should have split the earnings. The mother keeps half of her daughter's earnings, while the other half is returned to the casino.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now the Macau government is demanding the Sands Casino to pay the girl because the law only forbids the minor to enter the premises of the Casino but does not forbid the minor to gamble in the Casino.

I suppose that is similar to the law in the states where it is illegal for someone under the age of 18 to purchase cigarettes (or other tobacco products) but it isn't illegal for someone under the age of 18 to consume those products.

I'm on the side of the family/child where they won the money fairly, the family shouldn't be punished because the casino didn't adequately monitor their gaming floor... if the above quote is in line with the law, otherwise the jackpot is just a lucky/unlucky moment in that girl's life.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As somebody said above, it depends a lot on the exact wording. In Germany, for instance, the law prohibits the sale of alcohol to minors. Neither does it prohibit the purchase nor the consumption by minors. If that was the same in Macao, the girl would be the only one who did not commit a fault and thus should be entitled to the money. However, if the law actually forbids minors from entering the premises, then all three parties are at fault and none should get the money (HashiriKata makes a valid point, nobody should profit from breaking the law). I say donate it to charity, preferably one that deals with gambling addicts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the casino should not be allowed to keep the money, after all, as Skylee said, they broke the law (or facilitated breaking the law) by letting the girl in, they can't use that same law as an excuse not to let her have the money.

Giving the money to the girl might not be the best idea either, whether the law said that she could not go there or that the casino should not let her in, she knew she was not supposed to be gambling there, and should not be rewarded for doing so.

The mother might be the person who was wrong the most, she should take care of her daughter, not bring her in the casino to gamble. So giving the money to her is not right either. Given the fact that she was not only gambling, but taking her daughter gambling with her, she might very well gamble away the entire jackpot.

Maybe the best idea would be to either put the money in some kind of trust fund, which the girl would get when she goes to university or at some later time, or to give the money to charity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and select your username and password later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Click here to reply. Select text to quote.

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Create New...