Very interesting piece of news here, I hope we'll discuss it further as I think it's pretty curious to say the least. Here goes:

CROWN Casino took advantage of millionaire property developer Harry Kakavas by allowing him to play the baccarat tables when it knew he had a pathological gambling addiction, three appeal judges heard today.

Allan Myers QC, for Mr Kakavas, said his client was not truly responsible for his own actions when he lost millions at Crown and the Melbourne casino should have refused to deal with him.

Mr Myers told the Court of Appeal that a person betting $300,000 every few seconds at the baccarat table was an indication they did not have the ability to look after their own interests.

Mr Kakavas had excluded himself from every casino in Australia, including Crown, and it was not disputed he had a "special disability'' that meant he could not deal on equal terms with Crown.

"He had a 12-year history with Crown and an evident gambling problem,'' Mr Myers said.

Mr Myers said the law stated that parties to any transaction had to have the ability to "conserve their interests'' and casinos were not exempt from the protection offered to people with disabilities.

Start of sidebar. Skip to end of sidebar.

End of sidebar. Return to start of sidebar.

"A person seeking to conserve their interests would not enter a casino,'' commented Justice Philip Mandie.

The Gold Coast property developer turned over $1.5 billion on Crown's baccarat tables between June 2005 and August 2006, betting up to $300,000 a hand.

Mr Kakavas is appealing against a decision of Supreme Court judge Justice David Harper, who threw out Mr Kakavas's $35 million claim against Crown, saying his gambling addiction did not disadvantage him in his dealings with the casino.

Justice Harper said he accepted Mr Kakavas had a medically diagnosed gambling addiction, but concluded that he had been in full control of his actions and at all times had the power to self-exclude.

In the same judgment, Justice Harper questioned Crown casino's self-proclaimed status as the world's leader in responsible gambling.

Mr Myers said the Gambling Regulation Act said that people who self-excluded themselves or were excluded for other reasons should not be allowed to enter a casino or remain in a casino.

Justice Mandie asked if it was relevant whether a person was wealthy and could afford to lose large sums of money.

Mr Myers said that legally a casino could not accept a $1000 bet from the richest man in the world if he had excluded himself.

"Whether Mr Kakavas could afford to lose is neither here not there,'' he said.

The hearing is continuing.

source: Adelaide Now

Well, my thought is that the casino didn't force the guy to bet large amounts of money. What do you think?

Interesting article Johnny.  I did read some while ago about his claim against the casino but I didn't realise he had self-excluded. 

If you self-exclude yourself from a gambling establishment here in the UK or even online, it is actually binding for 6 months.  You are not allowed to enter the establishment even if it's just for a cup of coffee.  I can see that the way this is going, he will get some form of compensation, if not his money back.

blue

having any addiction is hard and maybe wht needs to happen is someone needs to be over his affairs until he gets help win or lose

Here Where I live in BC Canada if you self exclude yourself from a casino it is binding until such time that you ask for a review to allow you back into the casino. The self exclusion list (with photographs) is made available to casino staff. There are always at least 2 men stationed near the entrance and there is staff monitoring cameras for various activities, including looking for people who have self excluded or have been removed by the casino in the past for theft or cheating etc. Your BCGOLD card (like a loyalty card) is locked and is a way casino staff know you are there if you slip by the staff. When you self exclude you sign a document that binds the casino to uphold their end of it, not allowing you to gamble, and binds you to your end, not trespass on casino property.

true (i wish i had 300k or even $3000 )