Little_prince Supersonic December 7, 2010 Share December 7, 2010 In a first-of-its-kind case over here, Marina Bay Sands(MBS) is suing a casino patron who they claim to be one of the 'premium' players. 30-year-old Lester Ong Boon Lin allegedly owes the casino $240,868 in credit extension, but he claims that he owes the casino nothing. The casino claims that the credit extension was offered to him as he was a premium player with a minimum deposit of $100,000, reported a local news agency. The court documents filed by MBS show claim that the Mr Ong had applied for a $1 million credit extension in May and had presented the casino with a cheque of an unknown amount as security. The casino then presented the player with a quarter of a million in casino chips and both parties allegedly entered an agreement documenting this. However, Mr Ong claims that he had withdrawn the $100,000 before the $250,000 worth of chips were offered to him, hence making him ineligible to be a premium player. His lawyer, Sunil Singh Panoo of Messrs Dhillon & Partners further insists that as MBS had offered a known premium player credit, it should be viewed as a moneylender under the terms of the law. His argument also claims that as an unlicensed moneylender the credit extended to Mr Ong is "unenforceable and not recoverable". However, MBS' response reiterates the fact that Mr Ong had deposited S$100,000 cash to qualify as a premium player before credit was given to him. Their lawyers Surenthiraraj Saunthararajah and Toh Wei Yi of Harry Elias Partnership also insists that S$250,000 worth of casino chips would not have been offered in the absence of an agreement between the two parties. They also pointed out that Mr Ong had previously never denied the debt and had in fact made various proposals for repayment. The casino is seeking at $250,000, the minimum for a High Court case in damages and cost. ↡ Advertisement Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Meganut 2nd Gear December 8, 2010 Share December 8, 2010 wah if he can win this case... i think all of you who got 100k can go try... withdraw back the 100k so that you dun qualify as premium member anymore (as so the man argue)...take the chip, cash out and chao... no need to gamble... kns... O$P$... want to gamble, borrow money, lose and chao... kns... next time go borrow money from bank and buy house la.. can try pretend dun need pay the bank cos owe nothing... (you will be surprise there are some pple who owe bank credit cards money turn ard and say bank shldnt have given them the cards cos they earn 2.4 fix but on commission based...so if they dun qualify, they dun see the need to pay... kns...) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Watwheels Supersonic December 8, 2010 Share December 8, 2010 Sigh. Loser in denial. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mcfguy 1st Gear December 8, 2010 Share December 8, 2010 if like what he said he withdrew $100000 liao, wierd leh...if owe money, why would MBS allowed him to withdraw? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Freestylers09 5th Gear December 8, 2010 Share December 8, 2010 (edited) sound alot like sub prime thingy Edited December 8, 2010 by Freestylers09 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Little_prince Supersonic December 8, 2010 Author Share December 8, 2010 sound alot like sub prime thingy if you rich.... they will throw more money at you... if you poor, no one will lend you $2 even if you're starving [laugh] Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alantyc Clutched December 8, 2010 Share December 8, 2010 Another cheap b------d... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pippo20 Neutral Newbie December 8, 2010 Share December 8, 2010 In a first-of-its-kind case over here, Marina Bay Sands(MBS) is suing a casino patron who they claim to be one of the 'premium' players. 30-year-old Lester Ong Boon Lin allegedly owes the casino $240,868 in credit extension, but he claims that he owes the casino nothing. The casino claims that the credit extension was offered to him as he was a premium player with a minimum deposit of $100,000, reported a local news agency. The court documents filed by MBS show claim that the Mr Ong had applied for a $1 million credit extension in May and had presented the casino with a cheque of an unknown amount as security. The casino then presented the player with a quarter of a million in casino chips and both parties allegedly entered an agreement documenting this. However, Mr Ong claims that he had withdrawn the $100,000 before the $250,000 worth of chips were offered to him, hence making him ineligible to be a premium player. His lawyer, Sunil Singh Panoo of Messrs Dhillon & Partners further insists that as MBS had offered a known premium player credit, it should be viewed as a moneylender under the terms of the law. His argument also claims that as an unlicensed moneylender the credit extended to Mr Ong is "unenforceable and not recoverable". However, MBS' response reiterates the fact that Mr Ong had deposited S$100,000 cash to qualify as a premium player before credit was given to him. Their lawyers Surenthiraraj Saunthararajah and Toh Wei Yi of Harry Elias Partnership also insists that S$250,000 worth of casino chips would not have been offered in the absence of an agreement between the two parties. They also pointed out that Mr Ong had previously never denied the debt and had in fact made various proposals for repayment. The casino is seeking at $250,000, the minimum for a High Court case in damages and cost. The newspaper stated that he is son of a famous nasi lemak seller in Spore, walao must sell how many packets of nasi to earn $250k back? Which are the famous nasi lemak sellers in Spore? Chong Pang, Holland V, Changi?? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vextan 1st Gear December 8, 2010 Share December 8, 2010 this kind of case in singapore wont win one la. cos the plaintiff's case is base on technicality, which in singapore doesnt hold water . here the legal system places much more weitage on reasonableness than technicality. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vextan 1st Gear December 8, 2010 Share December 8, 2010 (edited) double post Edited December 8, 2010 by Vextan Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vextan 1st Gear December 8, 2010 Share December 8, 2010 (edited) triple post Edited December 8, 2010 by Vextan Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beehive3783 Turbocharged December 8, 2010 Share December 8, 2010 this kind of case in singapore wont win one la. cos the plaintiff's case is base on technicality, which in singapore doesnt hold water . here the legal system places much more weitage on reasonableness than technicality. yeah we know... x3 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Little_prince Supersonic December 8, 2010 Author Share December 8, 2010 can tell that vex is triply sure of this hor? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joseph22 Turbocharged December 8, 2010 Share December 8, 2010 can tell that vex is triply sure of this hor? Yeah, can tell he is triple piss too Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vextan 1st Gear December 8, 2010 Share December 8, 2010 sorry for the multiple posts. edited. and i am not triple pissed la. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike1234 1st Gear December 8, 2010 Share December 8, 2010 Yeah, can tell he is triple piss too maybe he is the victim? [laugh] Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joseph22 Turbocharged December 8, 2010 Share December 8, 2010 maybe he is the victim? he the one who approve the credit extension Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jman888 Moderator December 8, 2010 Share December 8, 2010 this kind of case in singapore wont win one la. cos the plaintiff's case is base on technicality, which in singapore doesnt hold water . here the legal system places much more weitage on reasonableness than technicality. you mean the casino won't win? in this case, the casino is the plaintiff..... you all make me blur :wacko: ↡ Advertisement Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In NowRelated Discussions
Related Discussions
How many here kena rape, attempted rape or molested?
How many here kena rape, attempted rape or molested?
Hawkers worry about stall design after fire at newly opened Bukit Canberra Hawker Centre
Hawkers worry about stall design after fire at newly opened Bukit Canberra Hawker Centre
Roof Grab Handle Sunglass Holder
Roof Grab Handle Sunglass Holder
Nasi Goreng too spicy
Nasi Goreng too spicy
What to do when kena Shingles??
What to do when kena Shingles??
Tyre kena sabo
Tyre kena sabo
$8.30 nasi lemak
$8.30 nasi lemak
Stall to Rent
Stall to Rent