Well-meant is not always well done. Surprisingly, this also applies to Swiss casinos , where absolute correctness and seriousness are expected. Switzerland is the epitome of correct behavior. A Swiss millionaire has just learned that this can also backfire. The “poor” man only wanted to get rid of a little of his money in a Swiss casino. No problem, you could think, but puff cake! It’s not that easy. Especially when you are supposed to behave “conspicuously”. And striking in this case means visiting the casino too often. But first things first. What had actually happened in the casino?
Too frequent casino visits already criminal?
A 70-year-old Swiss pensioner has a big problem, and this “big problem” is a seven-figure fortune. He recently wanted to address this point and remedy the situation with “moderate de-capitalization”. What could be better than gambling? There is no guarantee that you will actually lose money, but the probability is quite high. You can also have a lot of fun with it. So the sprightly pensioner visited the Grand Casino Bonus in Lucerne more oftenand played there for 100 or 200 Swiss francs. These are of course peanuts compared to the sums that are sometimes gambled there. But he also wanted to enjoy his “de-capitalization” for a long time. However, this passed him thoroughly after he was quoted by the casino management for a “conversation” in which he was supposed to reveal his financial situation. He was not amused by this invitation, although this review of his finances could only be in his favor. And after that he would be “… again a welcome guest at the Grand Casino in Lucerne”, said the management.
But nothing will come of it. Rather, there was first a armored letter to the management, in which the angry pensioner got upset about the behavior of the casino. He felt “treated like a criminal”. The person in charge had been asked to do this because he had appeared in the glamorous venue quite often for a while, and he only wanted “to spend part of my free time with small, limited assignments” as “degrading and careless” the player that the person responsible for the social concept, even after having checked his finances on the phone, assumed that he was living above his means. “How does a casino employee come to question my lifestyle?” The pensioner was outraged in his letter.
And how did this come about?
How did the casino employee really come up with this idea? We are back on the topic of “well-intentioned”. The Confederation has one of the strictest player protection laws in all of Europe. That is not wrong at first. Of course, even if frequent visits to the casino are not prohibited there, the casinos have ample discretion with regard to the early detection criteria laid down in the law, and the Grand Casino Luzern has used this. The Federal Gaming Board (ESBK) is responsible for compliance with and monitoring of the law and can also issue severe penalties until the license is withdrawn.
Better too much than too little
For the ESBK, it is better to look too much than too little. A casino was fined in 2016 because, according to the Federal Casino Commission, it had not looked closely enough at a player at risk. The sentence was reduced by the Federal Administrative Court, but in principle the commission was right.
Wolfgang Bliem, director of the Grand Casino Luzern, stated in an inquiry that the casinos are legally obliged to “carry out extensive and detailed clarifications if there are indications that a player could gamble beyond his means”. This is entirely in the spirit of the legislature, which has deliberately set the threshold for imposing a ban on games. Bliem even sees Switzerland with its legislation on player protection as the world leader, but he can understand that the legally required clarifications could be perceived as an interference with personal rights.
It was not until 1993 that the ban on casinos was lifted after a referendum, but strict conditions were imposed. According to a social concept, the casinos are obliged to ban the game if a player is suspected of being over-indebted, can no longer meet his / her financial obligations and plays with bets that are disproportionate to income and assets. Of course, there are also people in Switzerland who do not really trust this concept of self-regulation. They argue like this: “… like leaving speed limits to a speedster”. But as the case of the retiree shows, the ESBK is genuinely trying to control compliance with the law – just, that this time it backfired and that the Grand Casino Luzern probably has one satisfied customer less. We learn from this: Sometimes getting rid of your money in casino is not that easy.
Gaming Zion Casino 