TLDR Singapore’s High Court set aside a Hong Kong judgment that Venetian Macau Ltd tried to register locally to collect a gambling debt. The debt involved businesswoman Hu Yangning and totaled HKD19.35 million, about US$2.5 million. Judge Philip Jeyaretnam ruled that enforcing the debt would go against Singapore’s public policy on gambling. Law firm Rajah & Tann says foreign casinos can no longer use Singapore’s courts to register and collect gambling debts. Several legal questions remain open, including how regulated casino debts should be treated differently from unregulated ones.
Singapore’s High Court has issued a ruling that changes how foreign casinos can pursue unpaid gambling debts in the city-state. The decision came from a case involving Venetian Macau Ltd and a businesswoman named Hu Yangning.
Venetian Macau is a unit of Sands China Ltd. It holds the gaming concession for casino operations in Macau.
The company had already won a judgment against Ms Hu in Hong Kong. That judgment ordered her to pay HKD19.35 million, which is roughly US$2.5 million.
Venetian Macau then tried to register that Hong Kong judgment in Singapore. The goal was to use Singapore’s courts to help collect the debt.
Judge Philip Jeyaretnam set aside the registration. He ruled that enforcing the judgment would conflict with Singapore’s public policy against gambling debts.
What the Ruling Means for Casinos
Law firm Rajah & Tann reviewed the case and called it an important shift in how Singapore treats foreign gambling judgments.
According to the firm, foreign casinos cannot use Singapore’s statutory registration process to collect gambling debts. This holds true even when the casino already has a valid judgment from another country.
In simple terms, Singapore courts will not act as debt collectors for foreign casinos in gambling cases.
The ruling applies specifically to the