Please fill in the form to report an unsuitable comment. Please state which comment is of concern and why. It will be sent to our moderator for review.
I also agree with Neil Hickman.
This is about information and the assumptions about the information possessed by players of a game.
On the stock market, using inside information is penalised. That is a specific policy decision.
When you are selling a house or a car, you have more information than the buyer - you could be selling a something seriously flawed but the principle of caveat emptor applies (subject to the rules on misrepresentation of course)
There is no general rule against information inequality and attempts to create or maintain that inequality. Much commercial practice is surely about that.
It seems to me the court has done the gambling industry a huge favour by deciding that a game not played according to the chance/ information rules the house assumed to exist is potentially criminal and that someone who manipulates those rules by psyching out a member of staff is objectively dishonest.
Is counting cards now criminal?
There may well be other areas of life where attempts to gain an information advantage will now look risky in terms of committing fraud.
Copyright © 2019 The Law Society
Site powered by Webvision Cloud