Wynn Macau Ltd says it is currently seeking legal advice following a judgement by Macau’s Court of Final Appeal (TUI) which found the group jointly liable alongside junket promotor Dore Entertainment Company Limited for player funds stolen by a former Dore employee.
As reported by Inside Asian Gaming, TUI last week upheld a 2018 decision by the Court of Second Instance which found Wynn Macau subsidiary Wynn Resorts (Macau) S.A. jointly liable for HK$6 million (US$770,000) deposited in Dore’s VIP room at Wynn Macau by a player prior to the 2015 theft.
Up to HK$700 million is believed to have been taken by the former employee from a cage in Dore’s VIP room in September 2015, with four players subsequently suing for a combined HK$64 million (US$8.2 million) in lost deposits. However, only one of those players was able to provide proof of deposit for HK$6 million.
Macau’s Court of First Instance initially ruled Dore fully liable but the Court of Second Instance later found Wynn Resorts (Macau) S.A. jointly liable.
In a Wednesday filing, Wynn Macau confirmed it had been served the judgement on Monday 22 November pursuant to which it “shall be jointly liable with Dore to pay HK$6.0 million, together with the relevant interests of about HK$3.65 million, to such plaintiff.”
The company added that, “Based on advice from the Macau counsel of the Company, the Judgment is final and binding to all parties. The Group is currently seeking legal advice from its Macau counsel in relation to the Judgment.”
It has been suggested that the ruling could have significant consequences for the VIP industry and particularly the willingness of Macau’s concessionaires to engage with them to the extent they have in the past.
In an article published in Gaming Law Review in March of this year, former senior advisor to Macau’s Secretary for Economy and Finance, António Lobo Vilela, warned the TUI’s decision – which was pending at the time – would “reshape forever the relationship between casino operators and gaming promoters, finally understanding that the latent financial risks could eventually outweigh the perceived profitability of the VIP gaming.”
