Richard Munchkin, one of the hosts of the Gambling With and Edge podcast recently interviewed attorney Bob Nersesian, Partner at Nersesian & Sankiewicz Las Vegas, Nevada, about the recent Nevada Supreme Court case Young vs Nevada Gaming Control Board and its implications.
The interview looked at recent Nevada Supreme Court hearings which affected gamblers. Particularly the TSUN Young vs the Nevada Gaming Control Board [and Hard Rock Hotel and Casino], a suit which arose when a casino withheld payments on chips to Young because he could not confirm that he won the chips at the casino.
Nersesian, who worked on the case, detailed that: “The regulation provides that the casino knows or should know that you are not a ‘pateron’ before they can refuse to capture, to regain chips.
“The board has for about, six or seven years taken that language and said that that language means that the player must prove that he won the chips at the casino before they will be redeemed.
“The Nevada Supreme Court reversed the board, reversed the hearing examiner, reversed the casino and reversed the district court judge and issued and opinion that essentially says the language is pretty clear a patrons a customer, if you are a customer and you present chips, if you’re a customer and you present chips they have to cash them. That’s the decision.”
Detailing his difficulty in accessing the courts in the TSUN Young vs the Nevada Gaming Control Board case Nersesian stated: “With the exclusive jurisdiction provisions in the Nevada revised statute as related to casino patron disputes, it appears that any kind of civil suit is actually barred.
“The only way we got into the courts was to appeal the decision of the Gaming Control Board through a process called judicious review and that’s why it got into the courts system after the agent, the board and the hearing examiner all denied redemption.”
Munchkin laid out a situation in which he won $20,000 in chips from a casino and asked a friend who has a players card in that casino, has played there for a substantial time, and is not an AP, to show their ID and file the CTR with the 20,000 chips, would that casino allow them the cash those chips, even if he was only usually a $5 bettor himself?
Nersesian warned that in such a case he risks the potential of ‘running afoul of FinCEN and anti-money laundering regulations and statutes’: “if you want to really test it the way you do it is you walk in there and you give them 20,000 in chips and you say no. When you ask for your ID and you say no. Now you are refusing. While the federal government is having real problems with this and they have tried to strong arm the casinos into forcing you to show ID that’s not the law.”
“The burden is on the casino to do whatever it can legally to get your ID. There is no provision in that statue that shows that you have to show your ID.”
Nersesian cautioned that in sending in the third party person to cash your cheques could give the federal government reasonable suspicion and possibly probable cause to determine that you are violating the FinCEN’s regulations with respect to structuring and money laundering.
“If you send in your friend and he is a customer they may well be obligated to pay him under this case and they will go after his ID.
“If you have legitimate reasons for only cashing out $60,000 and a dime you should never even run a foul of the FinCEN regulations that will be noticeable and find some legitimate reasons because otherwise you’re structure.”
You can watch the full interview on Richard W. Munchkin’s YouTube channel here.