TLDR Singapore’s High Court ruled that a Hong Kong casino debt judgment cannot be enforced in Singapore. The case involved Venetian Macau Ltd, a subsidiary of Sands China, and a gambler named Hu Yangning. The judge pointed to Singapore’s public policy under the Civil Law Act, which blocks enforcement of gambling debts. The court rejected a 2004 precedent that had once allowed a similar debt to be enforced. Venetian Macau can still try to collect the debt in other countries, and the ruling does not cancel what Hu owes.
Singapore’s High Court has ruled that a foreign gambling debt cannot be enforced through its courts, even when a foreign judgment already declared the debt valid. The decision came from a case involving Venetian Macau Ltd, a subsidiary of Sands China.
The dispute traces back to 2023, when a woman named Hu Yangning signed a credit agreement with Venetian for up to HK$15 million, roughly US$1.9 million. She also signed a promissory note tied to money she used for gambling.
Hu did not repay the money. Venetian then filed a lawsuit against her in Hong Kong.
In March 2025, the Court of First Instance in Hong Kong gave Venetian a default judgment. The ruling ordered Hu to pay HK$19.35 million, plus 18% interest and legal costs.
Venetian then tried to collect on that judgment in Singapore, where Hu holds assets. The company registered the Hong Kong ruling under Singapore’s Reciprocal Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Act.
Hu appealed the move. On Friday, Singapore’s High Court sided with her.
Judge Philip Jeyaretnam wrote that enforcing the debt would go against Singapore’s long-standing public policy under the Civil Law Act. This holds true even though the gambling took place legally at a licensed casino overseas.
Court’s Reasoning On The Promissory Note