Is “Pseudo Junket” Involved?

Posted: August 19, 2010 in Uncategorized

An “Unlimited Credit” That Caused Huge Losses
Viewpoint submitted by: Ah Seng (William)
19 Aug 2010
Wow, how can that be? A businessman loss S$25.5m in a IR Casino, just over a span of few days.
He was granted initially a casino chip credit of $500,000 to start with and bankrolled into almost an “unlimited credit” play at the VIP Baccarat table! The losses stacked up to a total of S$25.5m just over a few days. It was reported that at times this guy would wager up to S$400,000 per hand (bets).
It was also reported that he might take this case against the casino in court, for “wrongfully” granting him such huge credit of chips play and, inevitably resulted the big losses.
Let’s be more creative for once, many in the industry would have heard of this term “pseudo junket”. This is one way of avoiding the strict casino junket control regulation imposed by the Singapore authority as well as not to expose the true identify of some VIP players brought into IR casinos. This “method” of avoidance is simply carried out in this manner, with a junket operator “naming” just one of the Players who’s “OK” in status does not arouse any suspicion from the authority. Then with the rest of “true players” come in to take turn and play big time at the VIP tables. But under record, there is only this one person’s account is opened for transaction.

From experience, it is very unusual for casinos to provide such huge credit extension to a relatively “new player” within short period of time (a few days) and to upgrade him to almost “unlimited” amount of credit chips in play before any progessive settlement. It is a common practice that a casino (such as Genting) would take about at least 6 months and more trips by the VIP players to gradually up the risk exposure of huge credit extension.

Such a PATTERN of chips draw-down on credit terms (within a few days) is more likely to associate with casino-junket transaction rather than individuals, even a VIP players.  So, something is missing here, about this interesting case. What has gone wrong?

A hypothesis, could this be a Pseudo Junket induced incident and has gone sour between the junket operator and casino? Another question, it is also unusual for a casino to straight-away give a discount of S$3m (12% of losses) to a casino player who loss. (Because no winning player would ever reciprocate such favour).

I think the case will be settled behind closed door eventually.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s