High Roller Ordered by Court to Cough Up
The high roller argued that he had been heavily intoxicated when he signed various credit card agreements, but failed to provide any concrete proof in support of his argument. The court in question ruled that even if this had been the case, and Lee had been under the influence of a substance like alcohol, the argument would still not suffice as the businessman had failed to cancel the agreements afterwards.
The verdict was handed down by Singapore Justice Valerie Thean.
Not Enough Proof for Debt Cancellation
According to reports, the honourable Justice said that she was of the opinion that Lee had not provided proof that outweighed the balance of probabilities and as such, his application for cancellation of debt to the tune of US$4.2 million, was dismissed. He failed to prove that he did not understand the nature and scope of credit agreements; neither during the time of having signed the agreements in question, nor after the fact when the effects of the intoxication would have worn off.
According to records compiled by investigators, the businessman first visited Resorts World Sentosa during July of 2010. At the time, he had hoped to be granted the opportunity of opening a seafood restaurant in the resort. He however took to becoming a very high roller in the games department, instead.
Lee initially ordered a batch of casino chips to the value of $3.6 million, and a mere two days later, a further $3.6 million. After having blown his chances with Lady Luck, Lee reportedly signed an acknowledgement of debt confirming that he did in fact owe money to the resort. By August 21st, 2015, Lee had managed to settle a large chunk of the money owing to the resort, after he managed to make payments totalling to $2.97 million.
Invalid Arguments Overruled
Lee’s legal representatives tried to argue every angle in the book in order to have the businessman absolved from having to pay the remaining portion of the debt owed to the resort. The resort’s lawyers however, managed to lodge effective arguments to the contrary, especially since Lee had provided inconsistent statements when he had initially sought relief from the tribunal.