Are casino markers bad checks in Nevada? (Nevada No. 34555)

Have you ever felt wronged after issuing a check that bounced, only to find yourself facing potential legal trouble? You're not alone—many people have found themselves in similar predicaments, unsure of their rights and responsibilities. Fortunately, the case of Nguyen v. State provides valuable insights and solutions for those entangled in such financial and legal dilemmas, so read on to discover how this precedent might help you navigate your own situation.

Case No. 34555 Situation

Case Overview

Specific Circumstances

In Nevada, a man from Texas found himself in legal trouble over financial dealings with several casinos in Las Vegas. He had obtained gambling credits, known as markers, from various casinos including Harrah’s, Luxor, and Excalibur. These markers are essentially IOUs that allow players to gamble on credit with the expectation that the amount will be covered by their bank account. However, after leaving the casinos, this individual did not settle his debts, and when the casinos attempted to cash these markers through his bank, they were returned with the note “Account Closed,” indicating insufficient funds to cover the debts.

Plaintiff’s Allegations

The plaintiff in this case is the State of Nevada, representing the interests of the casinos that issued the markers. The State argues that the man deliberately engaged in fraudulent activities by obtaining and using the markers without sufficient funds in his bank account, which constitutes a violation of Nevada’s laws against passing bad checks. The State claims that this was done with the intent to defraud the casinos and seeks to hold him accountable under the relevant statutes.

Defendant’s Allegations

The defendant, who is the man from Texas, argues that the casino markers should not be considered checks or drafts as defined under the law. He contends that these markers are more akin to credit instruments or loans, which should not fall under the bad check statute. Additionally, he claims that he was unfairly targeted for prosecution, suggesting that his equal protection rights were violated because other businesses that engage in similar practices are not prosecuted in the same manner.

Judgment Result

The court ruled in favor of the State of Nevada. The judgment concluded that the casino markers are indeed checks under the Nevada statute, as they are instruments that instruct a bank to pay a specific amount to the casinos. As a result, the defendant was found guilty of drawing and passing checks without sufficient funds with the intent to defraud. The court also dismissed the defendant’s claims of selective prosecution, determining that there was no evidence of unequal treatment under the law. The defendant is required to face the legal consequences of his actions as determined by the court.

Case No. 34555 Relevant Statutes

NRS 205.130(1)

NRS 205.130(1) is a Nevada statute that criminalizes the act of drawing or passing a check without sufficient funds in the bank account on which it is drawn. This statute is pivotal because it applies to any instrument that functions as a check, including casino markers. The statute requires that the person issuing the check does so with the intent to defraud. In Nguyen’s case, the court determined that casino markers qualified as checks under this statute. The markers were considered legally binding instruments instructing the bank to pay a specific amount to the casino on demand, fitting the statutory definition of a check or draft.

NRS 205.132

NRS 205.132 supports the enforcement of NRS 205.130(1) by establishing a presumption of intent to defraud. This presumption arises if the check is returned for insufficient funds and the issuer fails to settle the amount within five days after receiving notice. The statute essentially shifts the burden of proof, assuming fraudulent intent unless the issuer rectifies the situation promptly. This was significant in Nguyen’s case, as his failure to make good on the markers within the stipulated period supported the presumption of intent to defraud.

U.C.C. § 3-104

The Uniform Commercial Code (U.C.C.) § 3-104 defines what constitutes a negotiable instrument, such as a check. According to this provision, a check must be payable on demand and signed by the issuer. The court used this definition to confirm that casino markers, like those issued to Nguyen, met all criteria of a negotiable instrument under the U.C.C. Therefore, these markers were not merely credit instruments but checks that carried legal obligations when issued. This distinction was crucial in affirming that Nguyen’s actions fell under the scope of NRS 205.130(1).

Case No. 34555 Judgment Criteria

Principle Interpretation

NRS 205.130(1)

The statute NRS 205.130(1) broadly applies to any instrument that can be considered a “check or draft.” This includes any written order on a bank to pay a specified amount to a third party. In this case, the term “instrument” is key—it refers to any written document that directs payment. The statute is clear: if you write a check knowing you don’t have enough money to cover it, with the intent to deceive, you’re violating the law.

NRS 205.132

NRS 205.132 establishes a presumption of intent to defraud if a check bounces and the issuer does not make good on it within five days of being notified. This means the law assumes tricky intentions if you don’t settle the bounced check quickly. It’s designed to catch people who knowingly write bad checks and then ignore the consequences.

U.C.C. § 3-104

U.C.C. § 3-104 describes what constitutes a “negotiable instrument”—a fancy term for checks and similar payment orders. These are instruments that promise or order payment of money, can be transferred, and are payable on demand. The principle interpretation is straightforward: if it’s a written promise to pay, signed, and doesn’t specify a time, it’s payable on demand, like a regular check.

Exceptional Interpretation

NRS 205.130(1)

An exception might occur if the instrument in question was not intended to be a check or draft but rather a different kind of agreement, like a loan. This could apply if there’s evidence both parties agreed to treat the instrument as something other than a simple payment order. However, without such mutual understanding, the statute stands firm.

NRS 205.132

The presumption of intent to defraud might not apply if the issuer can prove they were unaware of the insufficient funds due to an honest mistake, like a banking error. However, just claiming ignorance without evidence doesn’t usually fly in court.

U.C.C. § 3-104

Exceptions under U.C.C. § 3-104 might occur if the instrument is not meant to be payable on demand—perhaps due to specific terms agreed upon by both parties that indicate otherwise. However, such cases require clear documentation and mutual agreement.

Applied Interpretation

In this case, the court applied the principle interpretation of the statutes. The markers issued by Nguyen were treated as checks under NRS 205.130(1) because they were on-demand payment instruments, signed and issued without sufficient funds. The court found no evidence of an agreed-upon different intent, such as a loan or deferred payment plan, thus rejecting the exceptional interpretation. Nguyen’s failure to cover the markers within the statutory period supported the presumption of intent to defraud under NRS 205.132. As such, the straightforward application of these statutes led to the conviction, affirming the principle interpretation as the governing law.

Key Term Resolution Methods

Case No. 34555 Resolution Method

In the case of Nguyen v. State, the court determined that casino markers are equivalent to checks under NRS 205.130, and thus, Nguyen’s conviction was upheld. Given the court’s ruling, pursuing litigation was not the optimal strategy for Nguyen, as the legal interpretation of markers as checks was clear and unfavorable to his case. Instead, Nguyen might have benefited from negotiating a settlement with the casinos to avoid criminal charges, possibly by arranging a repayment plan. Engaging a lawyer beforehand to explore such alternatives could have been advantageous, as they could have provided guidance on negotiating with the casinos and understanding the legal implications of the markers.

Similar Case Resolution Methods

Scenario: Different Bank Policies

In a situation where an individual’s bank has a policy of holding checks for a longer period before processing, the individual might argue that they had no intent to defraud. However, it would be prudent to avoid litigation. Instead, the individual should provide evidence of the bank’s policies to the casino and seek to resolve the matter through direct negotiation or mediation, thus preventing criminal charges and maintaining a clean record.

Scenario: Different State Laws

If this situation occurred in a state with different laws regarding markers and checks, parties should first consult with a local attorney to understand the specific legal landscape. If the state’s laws are more favorable, litigation could be a viable option. However, if the laws mirror Nevada’s, it may be more effective to negotiate or settle outside of court, potentially saving time and legal expenses.

Scenario: Different Casino Agreements

Should an individual have a written agreement with a casino specifying different terms for marker collection, such as a delayed payment schedule, they could have a stronger defense in court. In such a scenario, pursuing litigation with the assistance of a lawyer might prove beneficial, as the written agreement could serve as compelling evidence. Consulting with legal counsel early on would be essential to strategize effectively.

Scenario: Different Criminal Histories

An individual with a clean criminal history might be more successful in negotiating a resolution without resorting to litigation. They could highlight their previous good standing and propose a repayment plan to the casino. Engaging with a lawyer to facilitate these discussions could be helpful, as legal representation might lend credibility to their negotiations and increase the likelihood of reaching a favorable settlement.

FAQ

What Is A Marker

A marker is a credit instrument used in casinos, essentially a promise to pay a specific amount, which can be exchanged for chips to gamble with.

Check Vs Marker

A check is a bank instrument requiring immediate payment, while a marker is a casino credit tool, payable on demand, but often held for a set period before collection.

Legal Penalties

Passing a marker with insufficient funds can result in charges under NRS 205.130, similar to passing a bad check, leading to criminal prosecution.

Intent To Defraud

Intent to defraud involves knowingly passing a marker without sufficient funds, with the understanding that the bank will not honor it upon presentation.

Equal Protection

Equal protection challenges arise if prosecution is applied discriminatorily. However, Nguyen’s case found no evidence of selective enforcement against him.

Post Dated Checks

In this context, post-dating refers to an agreement to delay cashing a marker. However, Nguyen’s markers were deemed payable on demand, not post-dated.

Selective Prosecution

Selective prosecution claims require showing that a defendant was unfairly targeted. Nguyen failed to provide evidence supporting such a claim.

Credit Instruments

Markers are considered credit instruments, distinct from traditional loans, used specifically for obtaining gambling chips in casinos.

Casino Credit Rules

Casinos extend credit through markers after verifying financial details, and these must be paid or settled upon the casino’s demand.

Appeal Process

Nguyen appealed his conviction on grounds of statutory misapplication and equal protection but the court upheld the original decision, affirming the conviction.

Scared of secret land deals in Nevada? Read this first