You collect $200 each time you pass over or land on the GO. See the official rules.

Your question is quite interesting, it has been asked before here and here.

If you would like to learn more about the history of the Monopoly game, take a look on this and this.

You collect $200 each time you pass over or land on the GO. See the official Monopoly rules.

Your question is quite interesting and has been asked before.

If you would like to learn more about the history of the Monopoly game, take a look on The True History of the Monopoly Game and The History of the Landlord's Game & Monopoly.

What I think, is that player should collect $200 only if passing GO in the clockwise direction or landing on it (also by advancing to or over the GO using card). The rules state that it is possible to collect $200 more than once in a turn, however in this case I think that the player in question should:

Comment from @ColinD made me look for more information about the card. I've found information on Wikipedia that this card was omitted in U.S. editions since 1936. I'm assuming it wasn't ommited just in U.S. editions, since I've never actually seen this card in real life and I live in Europe.

This might be what makes things complicated here. As @ColinD suggested later, situation described in the OP's question might be the only way to achieve passing GO in the counter-clockwise fashion. Since the card allowing this to happen was omitted, there was no need to address this issue in the official rules - that's why they might not be crystal clear about this. I'm also afraid that looking at the rules from 1936 wouldn't solve this issue.

If you would like to learn more about the history of Monopoly game, take a look on this and this.

I wasn't completely sure my answer was correct and there were some good points made by other users. So, I decided to contact authorities for consultation. This is what I was told.

After contacting them by online form and describing situation (without mentioning my thoughts on how this should be resolved) I received following response:

Ok, so this answer doesn't provide much reasoning behind this, but the results of rules interpretation seem to be the same as mine.

If described situation was to happen in the tournament, the decision would be like this:

Player should immediately collect $200 for passing GO, before drawing Community Chest card. He doesn't collect money for passing over GO in backward direction. However in the next move, when he will be passing GO again, he should collect another $200.

This is the way I understood the rules. However, @Johno made a good point that maybe the player shouldn't collect another $200 when passing GO on the following turn due to the The $200 is paid only once each time around the board clarification, because he's already had the return for completing that circuit. I've also asked Mr. Stajszczak about this interpetation of the rules:

Indeed, this sentence could be interpreted in more than one way. However, I think it addresses different issue. This was to resolve the situation where player finishes his move on the GO - so that he won't get the money twice (first time for landing on GO and second time for leaving it).

By the way, the quoted sentence isn't present in Polish set of the rules. That's why this wasn't an issue in any of the Polish tournaments. Unfortunately we can't ask the game designer about this since he passed away.

Just in case of doubt, there was always an information in the Championship rules that the game rules are as main judge interpets them.

I believe this is probably the best answer you could get for this situation. That's the way the issue would most likely be resolved in the official tournament.

What I think is that the player should collect $200 only if passing GO in the clockwise direction or landing on it (also by advancing to or over the GO using card). The rules state that it is possible to collect $200 more than once in a turn, however in this case I think that the player in question should:

Comment from @ColinD made me look for more information about the card. I've found information on Wikipedia that this card was omitted in U.S. editions since 1936. I'm assuming it wasn't omitted just in U.S. editions, since I've never actually seen this card in real life and I live in Europe.

This might be what makes things complicated here. As @ColinD suggested later, the situation described in the OP's question might be the only way to achieve passing GO in the counter-clockwise fashion. Since the card allowing this to happen was omitted, there was no need to address this issue in the official rules - that's why they might not be crystal clear about this. I'm also afraid that looking at the rules from 1936 wouldn't solve this issue.

If you would like to learn more about the history of the Monopoly game, take a look on this and this.

I wasn't completely sure my answer was correct and there were some good points made by other users. So I decided to contact authorities for consultation. This is what I was told.

After contacting them by online form and describing the situation (without mentioning my thoughts on how this should be resolved) I received the following response:

Ok, so this answer doesn't provide much reasoning behind this, but the results of their rule interpretation seem to be the same as mine.

If described situation was to happen in the tournament, the decision would be like this:

The player should immediately collect $200 for passing GO, before drawing the Community Chest card. He doesn't collect money for passing over GO in backward direction. However in the next move, when he will be passing GO again, he should collect another $200.

This is the way I understood the rules. However, @Johno made a good point that maybe the player shouldn't collect another $200 when passing GO on the following turn due to the The $200 is paid only once each time around the board clarification, because he's already had the return for completing that circuit. I've also asked Mr. Stajszczak about this interpretation of the rules:

Indeed, this sentence could be interpreted in more than one way. However, I think it addresses a different issue. This was to resolve the situation where the player finishes his move on the GO - so that he won't get the money twice (first time for landing on GO and second time for leaving it).

By the way, the quoted sentence isn't present in the Polish set of the rules. That's why this wasn't an issue in any of the Polish tournaments. Unfortunately we can't ask the game designer about this since he passed away.

Just in case of doubt, there was always information in the Championship rules that the game rules are as main judge interprets them.

I believe this is probably the best answer you could get for this situation. That's the way the issue would most likely be resolved in an official tournament.

#Original answer#

#Edit#

##Pay a $10 fine or take a Chance##

##Authorities##

###Hasbro Customer Service###

###Main Judge of the Polish Monopoly Championships###

Original answer

Edit

Pay a $10 fine or take a Chance

Authorities

Hasbro Customer Service

Main Judge of the Polish Monopoly Championships