In a significant legal ruling, the Queensland Supreme Court has ordered Yew Choy Wong, a Singaporean businessman, to repay over AUD 38 million (approximately USD 25.7 million) to the Star Gold Coast casino for gambling debts incurred during a lavish spree in July and August 2018.
Details of the Case:
- Debt Accumulation: Wong amassed losses totaling AUD 47.3 million over just a few days, playing high-stakes baccarat.
- Escape and Legal Maneuvers: After losing the fortune, Wong left Australia without settling his debts. The casino attempted to use a blank check provided by Wong previously, but it was dishonored after Wong instructed his bank not to honor any checks from the Star.
- International Legal Battle: The Star initially tried to recover the debt in Singapore in 2019, but Singaporean courts dismissed the case due to laws generally prohibiting the recovery of gambling debts.
Court Ruling:
- Debt Confirmation: Justice Melanie Hindman of the Queensland Supreme Court upheld that Wong owed the casino the money, plus legal fees and interest.
- Alleged Agreement: Wong claimed an agreement was made with the casino’s COO, Paul Arbuckle, to waive his losses due to alleged dealer errors. However, this claim was refuted by Arbuckle and lacked substantial evidence, including a letter of apology from the casino which did not mention debt waiver.
Casino’s Response:
- Goodwill Gestures: Despite the debt, the casino made goodwill payments to Wong following his complaints, indicating some level of customer service reconciliation but not debt forgiveness.
Public and Legal Implications:
- Precedent for High-Stakes Gambling: This case sets a precedent for casinos in enforcing debts from high rollers, especially when disputes arise over the terms of play.
- Cross-Border Gambling Debts: The international aspect of the case highlights complexities in enforcing gambling debts across jurisdictions with different legal views on gambling.
Conclusion: The ruling against Wong underscores the enforceability of gambling debts in Australia, even in high-profile cases involving significant sums. It also reflects on the practices of casinos in managing high rollers, where lavish treatment can lead to substantial financial commitments. This case might encourage more stringent agreements or clearer terms between casinos and their high-stakes clients to avoid future legal disputes.
