M
Mdm Tang
Guest
.
Court slaps MBS with CCTV footage order
Court slaps MBS with CCTV footage order
Business Times Grace Leong
20 Jan 12
(SINGAPORE) The Singapore High Court has ordered Marina Bay Sands to declare whether it has CCTV video footage that a patron claims could prove that the casino violated local gaming laws when it allegedly offered unsolicited credit to him.
High Court assistant registrar Paul Chan Wei Sern last Friday ordered the casino to file an affidavit by Feb 3 stating whether it has the video footage, and if not, 'when they parted with it and what has become of it'.
Lester Ong Boon Lin, who is the subject of Singapore's first gambling debt collection lawsuit by MBS, said that the video footage was critical evidence as the High Court last March had conditionally allowed him to defend his case when it found he 'did raise a triable issue of fact' when he alleged that he was offered unsolicited credit by the casino.
'If (MBS) had indeed granted unsolicited credit to the defendant, it would have contravened Section 6 of the Credit Regulations, which provides that no unsolicited credit be granted to patrons. . . . It was therefore important that (Mr Ong's) allegation . . . be properly investigated in a trial,' assistant registrar Shaun Leong Li Shiong wrote in a March 30, 2011 grounds of decision.
MBS had appealed the March decision before a High Court judge but failed.
Mr Ong, who is being sued over a $240,868 unpaid gambling debt, wants the casino to produce seven hours worth of CCTV video footage at a gaming table on May 1-2, 2010. He claims that footage could prove that the casino violated section 6 of the Credit Regulations, which prohibits unsolicited credit from being granted to patrons except on their prior request.
He also wants MBS to produce another video recording at a gaming room on May 1, 2010 that could prove that he was not a premium player because the $100,000 he deposited allegedly wasn't his money, and was returned in the form of chips to an 'unidentified friend'.
But Calvin Raymond Pereira, MBS's associate general counsel, in an affidavit filed last month, argued that the video recordings aren't relevant to the proceedings, calling Mr Ong's request a 'fishing expedition . . . to find something that could allow him to avoid' his debt.
Mr Pereira also argued that MBS did not violate the credit regulations because it had given the chips on credit to him on May 3, 2010 after he applied for a $1 million credit line on May 1, 2010.
But Mr Ong, who is represented by Sunil Singh Panoo of Dhillon & Partners, said in court papers filed last week, that the video footage was relevant as it would 'prove whether the credit granted was solicited and whether it was by a prior request he made, . . . (which) affects the legitimacy of the debt (MBS) is seeking to enforce'.
Mr Ong claimed that he was approached by an MBS marketing host to apply for credit as he was losing a lot of money at a gaming table on May 1, 2010 even after he 'raised his hand to gesture he was not interested'.
MBS also objected to producing the video recordings, saying that even if they had existed, they aren't available now as 'the surveillance footage is automatically overwritten once the applicable retention period has elapsed'.
Mr Pereira pointed out that if the recordings were relevant, Mr Ong should have notified MBS immediately rather than writing more than a year after the incident.
'By this time, the retention period for any recordings made on May 1, 2010 and May 2, 2010 had elapsed and MBS no longer has in its possession, custody or power any recordings for Table MD 80113 and at Room 837.'
But Mr Panoo disagreed, saying that there is no explanation when MBS 'parted with the recordings' nor actual confirmation it had checked that the recordings were overwritten.
'According to the Casino Control (Surveillance) Regulations 2009, the CRA will issue a surveillance code setting out the performance requirements for a casino surveillance system. On the plaintiffs' part, they would have to summit a surveillance plan to the CRA for their approval,' Mr Panoo said.
The contents of the surveillance plans would set out the retention period and other relevant information, he said.
'How long was the retention period? Who determines or sets the retention period? If the retention period is set in any document(s), the plaintiffs must produce the said document(s).
'The plaintiffs were aware that they had the recordings (or had to retain the recordings) and knew of the issues alleged by the defendant at a very early stage.'
Therefore, MBS should have retrieved the recordings and kept it, he said.
Source: Business Times © Singapore Press Holdings Ltd. Permission required for reproduction.
Court slaps MBS with CCTV footage order
Court slaps MBS with CCTV footage order
Business Times Grace Leong
20 Jan 12
(SINGAPORE) The Singapore High Court has ordered Marina Bay Sands to declare whether it has CCTV video footage that a patron claims could prove that the casino violated local gaming laws when it allegedly offered unsolicited credit to him.
High Court assistant registrar Paul Chan Wei Sern last Friday ordered the casino to file an affidavit by Feb 3 stating whether it has the video footage, and if not, 'when they parted with it and what has become of it'.
Lester Ong Boon Lin, who is the subject of Singapore's first gambling debt collection lawsuit by MBS, said that the video footage was critical evidence as the High Court last March had conditionally allowed him to defend his case when it found he 'did raise a triable issue of fact' when he alleged that he was offered unsolicited credit by the casino.
'If (MBS) had indeed granted unsolicited credit to the defendant, it would have contravened Section 6 of the Credit Regulations, which provides that no unsolicited credit be granted to patrons. . . . It was therefore important that (Mr Ong's) allegation . . . be properly investigated in a trial,' assistant registrar Shaun Leong Li Shiong wrote in a March 30, 2011 grounds of decision.
MBS had appealed the March decision before a High Court judge but failed.
Mr Ong, who is being sued over a $240,868 unpaid gambling debt, wants the casino to produce seven hours worth of CCTV video footage at a gaming table on May 1-2, 2010. He claims that footage could prove that the casino violated section 6 of the Credit Regulations, which prohibits unsolicited credit from being granted to patrons except on their prior request.
He also wants MBS to produce another video recording at a gaming room on May 1, 2010 that could prove that he was not a premium player because the $100,000 he deposited allegedly wasn't his money, and was returned in the form of chips to an 'unidentified friend'.
But Calvin Raymond Pereira, MBS's associate general counsel, in an affidavit filed last month, argued that the video recordings aren't relevant to the proceedings, calling Mr Ong's request a 'fishing expedition . . . to find something that could allow him to avoid' his debt.
Mr Pereira also argued that MBS did not violate the credit regulations because it had given the chips on credit to him on May 3, 2010 after he applied for a $1 million credit line on May 1, 2010.
But Mr Ong, who is represented by Sunil Singh Panoo of Dhillon & Partners, said in court papers filed last week, that the video footage was relevant as it would 'prove whether the credit granted was solicited and whether it was by a prior request he made, . . . (which) affects the legitimacy of the debt (MBS) is seeking to enforce'.
Mr Ong claimed that he was approached by an MBS marketing host to apply for credit as he was losing a lot of money at a gaming table on May 1, 2010 even after he 'raised his hand to gesture he was not interested'.
MBS also objected to producing the video recordings, saying that even if they had existed, they aren't available now as 'the surveillance footage is automatically overwritten once the applicable retention period has elapsed'.
Mr Pereira pointed out that if the recordings were relevant, Mr Ong should have notified MBS immediately rather than writing more than a year after the incident.
'By this time, the retention period for any recordings made on May 1, 2010 and May 2, 2010 had elapsed and MBS no longer has in its possession, custody or power any recordings for Table MD 80113 and at Room 837.'
But Mr Panoo disagreed, saying that there is no explanation when MBS 'parted with the recordings' nor actual confirmation it had checked that the recordings were overwritten.
'According to the Casino Control (Surveillance) Regulations 2009, the CRA will issue a surveillance code setting out the performance requirements for a casino surveillance system. On the plaintiffs' part, they would have to summit a surveillance plan to the CRA for their approval,' Mr Panoo said.
The contents of the surveillance plans would set out the retention period and other relevant information, he said.
'How long was the retention period? Who determines or sets the retention period? If the retention period is set in any document(s), the plaintiffs must produce the said document(s).
'The plaintiffs were aware that they had the recordings (or had to retain the recordings) and knew of the issues alleged by the defendant at a very early stage.'
Therefore, MBS should have retrieved the recordings and kept it, he said.
Source: Business Times © Singapore Press Holdings Ltd. Permission required for reproduction.
