The defendant in question had signed a contract with the plaintiff whereby the latter would teach them how to play poker, financing any games played in the process.
The agreement stated that any profits would be shared, but losses should be repaid to the plaintiff should the defendant lose any games.
After the defendant lost a game, the plaintiff demanded repayment. However the Supreme Court ruled in the defendant’s favour.
A statement from the Supreme Court said: “After examining the case, the Supreme Court of Lithuania pointed out that a clear legal policy regarding gambling is being formed in Lithuania – such activities are not encouraged and considered dangerous to society, therefore gambling is restricted and controlled by various legal acts.
“The Supreme Court of Lithuania, finding that the agreement promoted gambling and that the plaintiffs sought to involve the defendant in gambling, declared the agreement contrary to public policy (ie the public interest), and dismissed the action.”
A ban on gambling promotion in Lithuania came into force back in July, making bonuses illegal in the country.