A Turkish-Dutch gambler, who years ago placed himself on Holland Casino self-ban list has won a lawsuit against the casino for allowing him to play in violation of Dutch gambling laws.
According to online gambling news in Netherlands, the gambler, who in court papers is only known as Plaintiff, has been gambling for decades at the Holland Casino monopoly until July of 2002.
During that unhappy month for the plaintiff he managed to lose E500,000 playing roulette but won E50,000 playing online bingo in Netherlands.
None the less, the plaintiff’s wife, who according to witnesses outweighs her husband by at least 100 kilograms, gave him an ultimatum – either quit gambling or the next time I will be on top.
The plaintiff, faced with such a life or death decision, immediately ran over to Holland Casino and after losing an addition E50,000 placed himself on a 500 year long self-ban list (not a miss-type).
Perhaps the defendant was of the Buddhist religion and decided to ban his future reincarnations, one may only guess since the court records could only produce the self-ban contract and not the logic behind the number.
Two and a half years later, the plaintiff showed up at Holland Casino and begged to wave the ban indefinitely.
After crying and kissing the feet of the Holland Casino floor manager for over an hour and attempting what a security guard witnessing the event described as ‘offering to perform a sexual act on the Holland Casino floor manager while the plaintiff was kneeling’, the Holland Casino manager agreed to let the defendant gamble.
The new contract between the plaintiff and Holland Casino allowed the Plaintiff to gamble only twice a month for a period of six months. During that time the defendant lost another E750,000 and was hospitalized with a ‘crushing injury’.
The defendant sued, alleging that he initially asked for a permanent, irrevocable 500 year ban and that he was a sick man, unable to control his urges to spin the mighty roulette wheel.
The defendant argued that the floor manager had no right to create a new contract no matter how much the defendant begged, cried, or pleaded. Holland casino stated that humans have a free will and it is not up to them to deny an adult wishing to amend a self-ban contract.
The judge however disagreed, saying that Holland Casino as a gambling monopoly of the government of Netherlands has a moral obligation to protect the citizens and especially those suffering from gambling fever, for which there is no known cure.
The judge ordered Holland Casino to pay the defendant but left it up to the Casino and the defendant to iron out the details regarding the sum. Holland Casino is appealing the ruling and refused to comment on the case.