Macau's Court of Final Appeal completed nine cases between January and February 2022 involving gaming promoters who refused to return cash chips that VIP room members had deposited, and held that the concessionaire companies bear joint and several liability for their promoters1. The court's president's office announced the rulings in a press release1.
Eight of the cases involved 多金娛樂一人有限公司 (Multigold) and 永利渡假村(澳門)股份有限公司 (Wynn Resorts (Macau)), and the remaining case involved 太陽城博彩中介一人有限公司 (Suncity) and 美高梅金殿超濠股份有限公司 (MGM Grand Paradise)1. The plaintiffs were all members of Multigold or Suncity VIP rooms, and the amounts they had deposited ranged from 1 million to 60 million Hong Kong dollars in cash chips1. They asked the courts to order Multigold and Wynn, or Suncity and MGM, to return the chips or an equivalent sum plus statutory interest on a joint liability basis1.
Multigold and Suncity became promoters of the two concessionaires after obtaining their permission and consent, and each opened VIP rooms in those concessionaires' casinos where members could deposit and withdraw chips1. All nine cases went to the Court of Second Instance, where eight were decided in favor of joint liability between the concessionaire and the promoter for returning the chips or the equivalent amount; one was decided against it on the ground that "沒有事實證明存碼與博彩中介有關，因此裁定博彩承批公司不用承擔連帶責任"1. All nine were then appealed to the Court of Final Appeal1.
The Court of Final Appeal held that the administrative regulation setting qualifications and rules for casino lucky gaming promoter business is intended to compel concessionaires to bear joint liability toward third parties for activities carried out by their promoters, and that this liability is administrative in nature regardless of whether any administrative offense occurred, applying only to typical activities promoters carry out inside casinos for the concessionaire's benefit1.
"難以理解博彩承批公司如何可以將一項包含在批給範疇內的業務交給其專門為此目的而聘用的其他實體去從事，卻又不用為這些實體在開展這些業務時可能造成的損害承擔任何責任。因此，合議庭認為，博彩承批公司就其博彩中介人在其旗下的娛樂場所開展的活動而對第三人產生的債務，須向第三人承擔連帶責任。"
The rulings are recorded under Court of Final Appeal cases 50/2020, 76/2020, 121/2020, 34/2020, 46/2020, 136/2020, 185/2020, 205/2020 and 82/20201.
| Party | Concessionaire | Cases |
|---|---|---|
| Multigold | Wynn Resorts (Macau) | 8 |
| Suncity | MGM Grand Paradise | 1 |
What it means for players
The ruling concerns chips deposited with a promoter's VIP room rather than chips bought directly at a casino cage. For members who deposited chips with a promoter and were refused when they asked to withdraw them, the decision means the concessionaire hosting that VIP room can be pursued for the same amount, not only the promoter. The court limited this to typical promoter activities carried out inside the casino for the concessionaire's benefit, and one of the nine cases failed on the facts because the deposit was not shown to be connected to the promoter1. The decision addresses civil recovery of deposited chips; it does not change the separate question of whether gambling debts themselves are enforceable, which varies across the region under gambling debts law. General rules on conduct inside casinos are covered in casino rules, and the wider licensing framework in gambling laws in Asia.
What happens next
No further steps are set out in the announcement. The nine cases were decided by the Court of Final Appeal, which is the final instance in Macau, and no subsequent development has been reported1.
Sources1 sources
- 貴賓廳存籌碼案 終院：賭牌公司須為博彩中介人承擔連帶責任, aamacau.com
