The Dai Duong Company has appealed against the District 1 People’s Court in HCM City’s decision to request it to pay USD55.5 million to a Vietnamese American gambler.

Mr. Ly Sam at the trial on January 7

On January 7, the District 1 People’s Court in HCM City announced the result of the trial in that ruled that the Dai Duong Company, which owns the Palazzo Club at the five-star Sheraton Saigon Hotel, must pay 61-year old Ly Sam VND1.15 trillion (USD55.5 million).

On October 25, 2009, Ly Sam visited the Palazzo Club and played “The Landlord” game. He won USD5.5 million.

He photographed the screen himself and reported his winnings to the managers, asking them for written proof with signatures. But, the club manager refused to sign any document, instead giving a verbal promise to pay within three days.

When he failed to receive his reward, he sent a letter to the general director of the Dai Duong Joint Venture Company to request payment. Finally, Sam was shocked to be informed that the prize was a result of a machine malfunction.

According to the company, the judgment of the trial on January 7 failed to assess the case accurately, violating procedural law, and therefore it would lodge an appeal to the HCM City People’s Court.

After the court announced the trial results, the defendant invited reporters to go to its club to explore the club regulations and casino operations.

Lawyer Ngo Thanh Tung from Vietnam International Law Firm which is defending the company said the court had a one-sided evaluation of the lawsuit. Mr Sam was the plaintiff, therefore he had to prove that he was the winner, but he had failed, the lawyer claimed.

Dai Duong Company said the machine that said Mr. Ly Sam had won USD55.5 million was suffering from technical problems

The lawyer added that the court had to force Sam to prove he had won the money before requesting Dai Duong Company to show that there were any technical problems of the slot machine. The court also needed to ask the machine producer whether Sam won the money fairly or not. Therefore, it was necessary for the judge to get the producer’s opinions and then seek an independent assessment before the results were announced.

Dai Duong Company also disclosed that it would somehow collect unbiased representatives from the Ministry of Finance, the machine’s producer and an independent supervising agency to ensure a fair and objective result at the court of appeal.