In a landmark ruling by the Supreme Court in Brisbane, Singaporean high roller Dr. Yew Choy Wong has been ordered to pay over AU$38 million (US$25.3 million) to Star Entertainment Queensland. The hefty gambling debt accumulated after a five-day spree at Star Gold Coast casino in 2018. The ruling, delivered by Justice Melanie Hindman, also required Dr. Wong to cover the legal costs and interest, which has been mounting since September 2018.

Singaporean High Roller Ordered to Pay AU$38M to Star Entertainment Queensland

Background of the Gambling Debt

The debt arose during a five-day gambling spree in July 2018 at the Star Gold Coast casino, where Dr. Wong lost AU$47.3 million at the baccarat tables. After amassing these substantial losses, Dr. Wong left the country without clearing his outstanding debt. According to the court records, Dr. Wong’s actions were “not unusual” for high-stakes gamblers.

Star Entertainment sought to recover the debt using a cheque Dr. Wong had issued during a previous visit to Star Casino in Sydney. However, when the casino attempted to cash the cheque, it bounced due to instructions Dr. Wong had given his bank to halt the payment.

Star Entertainment’s Efforts to Recover the Debt

Following the bounced cheque, Star Entertainment Queensland formally demanded that Dr. Wong pay AU$43.2 million in October 2018. The figure included the losses incurred, as well as interest that began to accumulate immediately after the gambling spree.

Dr. Wong contested the debt, claiming that a verbal agreement had been reached between himself and Star Entertainment’s Chief Operating Officer, Paul Arbuckle, during a disagreement over how his baccarat cards had been dealt. He asserted that Mr. Arbuckle agreed to waive his losses up until July 30, 2018.

Legal Dispute and Dr. Wong’s Allegations

Dr. Wong’s central argument in court hinged on his belief that a verbal agreement existed to waive the substantial losses he had incurred during the period in question. He specifically pointed to dissatisfaction with how the game had been conducted, asserting that his gaming preferences had not been properly followed. This, he claimed, led to the alleged waiver agreement.

However, Mr. Arbuckle vehemently denied the existence of any such agreement. Furthermore, correspondence between Star Entertainment and Dr. Wong acknowledged a minor lapse in adhering to gaming preferences but failed to reference any waiver of the debt.

Justice Melanie Hindman’s Ruling

After thoroughly reviewing the evidence presented by both parties, Justice Melanie Hindman ruled in favor of Star Entertainment Queensland. In her ruling, she noted that there was no documentation or credible evidence to support Dr. Wong’s claim that his debt had been waived by the casino’s executive. The minor discrepancy in gaming procedure, she said, did not merit the waiver of tens of millions in losses.

A letter sent by the casino to Dr. Wong following his complaint about the card dealing acknowledged the error in following his preferences but made no mention of any agreement to relieve him of his debt. The court thus found no grounds to support Dr. Wong’s assertion that Star Entertainment had agreed to write off his significant gambling losses.

Debt with Mounting Interest and Legal Costs

In addition to the AU$38 million debt, Dr. Wong was ordered to pay interest accruing at a daily rate of AU$8,819 over 2,174 days. As of the date of the ruling, this compounded interest brought the total amount to over AU$38 million. Dr. Wong was also required to cover Star Entertainment’s legal costs, adding to his already substantial financial burden.

The ruling represents a significant victory for Star Entertainment Queensland, which has been actively seeking to recover the massive sum since the gambling session took place in 2018. It also sends a clear message regarding the responsibilities of high-stakes gamblers and their obligations to casinos when gambling on credit.

Impact of the Ruling on the Casino Industry

This case has far-reaching implications for the casino industry, particularly in Australia, where high rollers from overseas frequently gamble on credit. It reaffirms the importance of clear agreements between casinos and their patrons, particularly when large sums of money are involved. The case also highlights the risks that casinos face when extending credit to high-stakes gamblers, especially international patrons who may attempt to contest debts incurred.

Casinos are now more likely to implement stringent risk management strategies, including detailed documentation of all agreements made with high rollers. This is particularly true in light of the increasing scrutiny casinos face regarding responsible gambling practices and their broader social responsibilities.

A Cautionary Tale for High Rollers

For high rollers like Dr. Wong, the ruling is a stark reminder that gambling debts are not easily dismissed. Despite his claims of a verbal agreement and dissatisfaction with the way his game was conducted, the court held him accountable for the full amount he owed. The case demonstrates that high rollers must exercise caution when relying on verbal agreements and should ensure that any grievances or settlements are properly documented.

Dr. Wong’s case also raises questions about the behavior of international high rollers and the lengths to which casinos will go to recover debts from such individuals. With growing competition in the gambling industry, casinos are likely to tighten their credit policies and emphasize clear, written agreements with their patrons to avoid disputes of this nature.

Conclusion: The Ruling

The ruling by the Supreme Court of Brisbane against Dr. Yew Choy Wong sets an important precedent for casinos and gamblers alike. The decision to hold Dr. Wong responsible for his AU$38 million gambling debt underscores the importance of clear agreements, proper documentation, and accountability in high-stakes gambling. For Star Entertainment Queensland, the ruling brings an end to a protracted legal battle and serves as a warning to other high rollers seeking to evade their debts.

FAQs About Singaporean High Roller Ordered to Pay AU$38M to Star Entertainment Queensland

1. What was the Supreme Court ruling regarding Dr. Yew Choy Wong?

The Supreme Court in Brisbane ruled that Singaporean high roller Dr. Yew Choy Wong must pay AU$38 million (US$25.3 million) to Star Entertainment Queensland for a gambling debt incurred during a five-day gambling spree at Star Gold Coast in 2018.

2. How much did Dr. Wong lose at Star Gold Coast casino?

Dr. Wong lost AU$47.3 million during a five-day gambling spree in 2018 at the Star Gold Coast casino.

3. Why did Dr. Wong not settle his gambling debt?

Dr. Wong left Australia after his losses without paying, and later contested the debt, claiming a verbal agreement with Star Entertainment’s COO to waive the debt due to dissatisfaction with how his baccarat cards were dealt.

4. Was there any agreement to waive Dr. Wong’s debt?

No, the court ruled there was no evidence of any agreement to waive Dr. Wong’s debt. The claim was based on a verbal agreement, which was denied by Star Entertainment’s COO, Paul Arbuckle.

5. How did Star Entertainment try to recover the debt?

Star Entertainment attempted to recover the debt using a cheque Dr. Wong had issued during a previous visit to their Sydney casino. However, the cheque bounced after Dr. Wong instructed his bank to halt the payment.

6. What interest has been added to Dr. Wong’s debt?

Interest on the debt has been accruing at a daily rate of AU$8,819 since 2018, which contributed significantly to the total amount owed, now exceeding AU$38 million.

7. Did Dr. Wong’s dissatisfaction with the baccarat game impact the ruling?

The court acknowledged a minor lapse in following Dr. Wong’s gaming preferences but found no reason to waive his debt based on this issue.

8. What are the legal consequences for Dr. Wong?

In addition to the AU$38 million debt, Dr. Wong was ordered to pay interest and Star Entertainment’s legal costs, further increasing his financial obligations.

9. How does this ruling impact the casino industry?

The ruling underscores the importance of clear documentation and written agreements when dealing with high rollers. It may lead casinos to tighten credit policies and risk management procedures when extending credit to international high-stakes gamblers.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *