No, you are not right
Actually in the code below
if you print the stack trace of the exception, it will be an IllegalMonitorState that means that you are calling wait without putting it into a synch block.
That is an explanation of the code ...
However, i did not get the point saying that it does not need a synch block if the thread holds a lock of the object. Actually, synch takes a lock on the object .. so it does not seem logical to say that you dont have a synch block but you hold a lock !!!
Anyways, the code posted will produce an exception when the thread hardy tries to wait on laurel without acquiring a lock on laurel.