Nguyen v. Nevada
Nevada Supreme Court
14 P.3d 515 (2000)
- Written by Brett Stavin, JD
Facts
In December 1995, Tuan Ngoc Nguyen (defendant), a resident of Texas, obtained gaming credit, commonly known as markers, from several Las Vegas casinos. He received a $5,000 marker from Harrah’s, a $5,000 marker from the Luxor Hotel and Casino, and a $2,500 marker from the Excalibur Hotel Casino. For each marker, Nguyen applied for the credit using a standardized form stating his name, address, bank, and bank account number. Casino personnel approved the applications pending confirmation of the bank account and the existing balance. Each marker was dated and bore the name of the player, the player’s bank account information, and the instruction “Pay to the Order of” the casino for the specific marker amount. Each marker also contained language whereby the payor affirmed that his bank account contained sufficient funds and guaranteed payment. Nguyen and the casinos signed each marker. Typically in the industry, when a patron finishes playing, he will either pay the full marker or leave the casino with the marker outstanding. If the marker remains outstanding, casino personnel will attempt to contact the player, and they will eventually submit the marker to the player’s bank for payment. If the marker is returned for insufficient funds, the casino will typically try to contact the patron again. If payment still is not made, the casinos may refer the patron for criminal prosecution. Here, Nguyen left Las Vegas without paying any of the markers. Each casino eventually sent its marker to Nguyen’s bank, which returned the markers with the notation “Account Closed.” After failed attempts to contact Nguyen, the casinos referred the matter for criminal prosecution. Nguyen was charged with check fraud in violation of Nevada’s criminal statute prohibiting the drawing or passage of bad checks. Nguyen entered into a plea agreement, reserving the right to appeal the issue of whether casino markers were checks under Nevada’s bad-check law. Nguyen additionally argued that his conduct did not establish the requisite criminal intent for passing bad checks.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Maupin, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 815,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.