Man loses legal bid to cash in $59,500 in chips from now-defunct New Jersey casino
Atlantic City, New Jersey has been at the center of a recent legal dispute involving nearly $60,000 worth of casino chips from the now-defunct Playboy Hotel and Casino. The chips were purchased at an online auction by a man who attempted to redeem them with the state Treasury Department’s Unclaimed Property Administration in January 2023. However, his redemption was denied due to the chips being “pilfered” by an employee of a company responsible for destroying them.
The Playboy Hotel and Casino operated from 1981 to 1984, and as part of its closure, funds were transferred to the UPA to cover redemptions of outstanding chips issued to patrons during its operation. The man, unaware of the origin of the chips, bought 389 of them at an online auction for $59,500. Upon investigation by the New Jersey State Police, it was revealed that a former employee of the company tasked with destroying the chips had stolen several boxes of unused chips around 1990 and stored them in a bank deposit box.
The ex-employee declared bankruptcy and forgot about the chips in the bank deposit box, which was eventually opened by the bank in 2010. The chips were confiscated by the bank and later sent to the auction house where the man purchased them. Despite the man’s claim that he had acquired the chips innocently, the UPA rejected his redemption request in June 2023 on the grounds that the chips were not issued to patrons in the normal course of casino operations.
The man appealed the decision, arguing that the UPA had insufficient evidence and had acted arbitrarily and capriciously. However, in a ruling issued on April 1, the appellate court upheld the UPA’s decision, stating that the man was not entitled to the funds as he did not possess chips that had been issued by the casino.
This legal battle serves as a cautionary tale for individuals purchasing items at online auctions, highlighting the importance of verifying the source and legitimacy of the items being bought. The case also sheds light on the complexities of dealing with unclaimed property and the challenges faced by regulatory authorities in resolving such disputes.
