## Facts

- Tuan Ngoc Nguyen, a Texas resident, obtained gambling credit from multiple Las Vegas casinos and received funds at gaming tables via casino “markers.”
- Each marker identified Nguyen, his bank and account information, and directed the bank to “Pay to the Order of” the casino a specified sum in U.S. dollars.
- The markers included Nguyen’s representation that the amount was on deposit at the referenced financial institution and that he guaranteed payment; Nguyen and a casino representative signed the markers.
- Casinos attempted to collect by contacting Nguyen and depositing the markers; the banks returned the markers because the account was closed or had insufficient funds.
- Nguyen did not repay the markers.
- Nevada charged Nguyen with drawing and passing a check without sufficient funds under NRS 205.130(1), based on the markers; a jury convicted him on one count.

## Issues

1. Whether casino markers, as issued and processed here, qualify as “checks” within the meaning of NRS 205.130.
2. Whether applying NRS 205.130’s rebuttable presumption of “intent to defraud” based on dishonor for insufficient funds or a closed account violates due process when the instrument is a casino marker.
3. Whether prosecution under the bad-check statute impermissibly criminalizes nonpayment of a gambling debt.

## Decision

- The Nevada Supreme Court affirmed the conviction.
- The court held that a casino marker, when used and processed as described, is a “check” for purposes of NRS 205.130.
- The court held that NRS 205.130’s presumption of intent to defraud is constitutional as applied to markers because it is rebuttable and rationally connected to dishonor for insufficient funds or a closed account.
- The court rejected the argument that the case criminalized a mere debt, reasoning that criminal liability turned on passing an instrument representing funds on deposit that was later dishonored.

## Legal Principles

- An instrument drawn on a bank account, payable to a specified payee for a sum certain, signed by the maker, and presented to the bank for payment may be treated as a “check” under NRS 205.130, even if issued in a casino-credit transaction.
- A casino marker that contains bank/account information, a payment order to the casino, and the maker’s representation that funds are on deposit and guaranteed can fall within NRS 205.130 when processed like a check and deposited for collection.
- NRS 205.130 permits a rebuttable presumption of intent to defraud when the instrument is dishonored upon presentment due to insufficient funds or a closed account; the defendant may offer evidence to rebut the inference.
- Treating dishonored markers as bad checks does not criminalize simple nonpayment of a debt where the prosecution is based on passing a dishonored payment instrument bearing representations about available funds.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed Nguyen’s bad-check conviction, concluding that casino markers functioned as checks under NRS 205.130 and that the statute’s rebuttable presumption of intent to defraud, triggered by dishonor for insufficient funds or a closed account, could be applied to markers without violating due process.


Nguyen v. State, 14 P.3d 515 (Nev. 2000)