Faits Divers

Loto : Controverse autour du dernier jackpot de Rs 27 571 929

Fregassen Chellumbrum, l’heureux gagnant des Rs 27 571 929, du tirage du 18 décembre, se retrouve au cœur d’une polémique. Depuis qu’il a empoché son gain le lundi 20 décembre, certains de ses collègues lui en veulent, alléguant qu’ils ont joué en association.


Fregassen Chellumbrum ne s’est plus présenté à son lieu de travail depuis le lundi 20 décembre dernier. Il est chef de sécurité au Mauritius Duty Free Paradise à l’aéroport de Plaisance, pour le compte d’une compagnie privée, depuis 5 ans et demi. Fregassen Chellumbrum a, dans un premier temps, informé ses supérieurs qu’il était souffrant.


Ce même jour, cet habitant de Vacoas a présenté son ticket gagnant portant les numéros 5-17-19-24-26-38 et enregistré chez Chan Kin Pool &amp Co à Port-Louis, au siège de la Loterie nationale. Il est reparti avec son chèque de Rs 27 571 929.


Au courant de la semaine, ses collègues ont appris que celui-ci avait soumis sa lettre de démission. Ce qui ne fait pas la joie de certains d’entre eux. Ils avancent que d’habitude, ils jouent au loto en association d’une quinzaine de personnes, qui travaillent au sein de plusieurs départements de Mauritius Duty Free Paradise.


Ils veulent également porter plainte à la police, estimant qu’après vérification des numéros gagnants, le jackpot de Rs 27 571 929 revenait à l’association et non à Fregassen Chellumbrum seulement. Ajoutant que la somme doit être repartie équitablement entre tous les associés.


Contacté au téléphone, un autre membre de cette association avance, lui, que la polémique autour du dernier gagnant du loto, n’est que rumeur. «Je connais M. Chellumbrum très bien. Certaines personnes racontent des ragots. Je suis sûr et certain que les numéros gagnants ont bien été cochés par Fregassen Chellumbrum lui-même», soutient notre interlocuteur.


lexpress.mu a essayé en vain de solliciter une réaction du grand gagnant, mais on est constamment tombé sur son répondeur. Du côté de la Loterie Nationale, les règlements sont catégoriques. Toute somme déboursée revient bien au détenteur du ticket gagnant.

Commentaires

From: CAMELOT. | 12/25/10

-From: Camelot
The gambling industry needs to take responsibility.
Debate on gambling and super casinos./ our commitment to a healthy society
General grounds for unease do not rest primarily on a principled opposition to all forms of gambling in any shape in any place. Belonging to a school of thought which has a mixed record on these matters, I can hardly take the moral ground with too much confidence. My objection is rather to the sleight of hand by which the whole business of the gambling industry has become coupled with the regeneration theme in ways whichI have to be candidI find quite baffling. We have been reminded already by several noble minds that terms such as problem gambling conceal a rather more unpalatable and extreme reality, of which some have spoken, in terms of addictive behaviour. While it is undoubtedly true statistically that casino gambling represents a relatively small segment of the overall problem of addictive gambling, none the less it represents a significant part and a social factor whose impact on its immediate environment is not restricted to addictive gambling.
Wonder whether the undoubted enthusiasm of some State authorities for the presence of casinos in our midst has something to do with the absence of other viable forms of regeneration policy proposed to them. Institutions that can encourage criminality and intensify irresponsibility are poor allies of social and civic regeneration. It may beI believe that it isthat we cannot simply turn our eyes away from the social reality of gambling and the desire of people to gamble. I should be the last to wish this brushed under the carpet. None the less, I am left with these questions about the procedure by which this gambling policy has been brought before us and the advice on which it is based. I hold no great brief, but one thing that might be observed about these criteria is that they lack that through-and-through consistency which is one of the better known aspects of one of the better known products. I am left then with asking who in the community at large actively initiates and wants these proposals, as opposed to selecting them as the least bad alternatives in situations where regeneration is an urgent and serious priority. My belief is that that urgent priority is not best met by going down the road that is before us in the proceedings- . I note that the question is left open of how benefits can be secured to local people rather than large investors.
I'm not quite so pessimistic about the hostility of public perception on this. Very few people in this country want to see gambling banned. They recognise the dangers of supervising that, and of driving something underground. But a striking number of people in this country feel deeply uneasy about the trends to which we've already been alerted, and I hope that what those policy makers will be in tune with precisely that unease in the country at large.
And I quite disagree the utterly extraordinary, not to say ridiculous, claims about gambling as a means for regeneration simply obscure the fact of cost. Gambling is socially costly and whatever is said about supposed financial benefits, the creation of jobs and so forth in an area, one has to build in the cost in terms of all those factors.
Mental health: It doesn't do us any harm, I think, to make the connection. If we are concerned about mental health issues in the nation at large, then this particular question of gambling comes broadly under that head, and we need to see it as such, as a witness to our commitment to a healthy society healthy persons delivered from precisely that slavery of addiction which was referred to earlier.