Sands China subsidiary Venetian Macau Ltd has been blocked from enforcing a HK$19.35 million ($2.5 million) casino debt judgment in Singapore, in a ruling that could affect how foreign casinos assess credit issued to customers with assets in the city-state.
The Singapore High Court set aside an order registering a Hong Kong judgment against Hu Yangning, finding that enforcement would violate public policy against using the courts to collect gambling debts, according to a September 4th judgment.
Hu is a businesswoman who patronized Marina Bay Sands with VIP status. According to Hu’s evidence cited by the court, an MBS client manager recommended the Venetian Macau Casino to her in 2011. She continued until 2024.
In November 2023, Hu signed a credit agreement for up to HK$15 million ($1.9 million), together with a promissory note and authorization letter. A Hong Kong court entered a default judgment in March 2025, ordering her to pay HK$19.35 million, interest at 18 percent per annum from October 29th, 2024, until full payment, and costs.
Venetian registered the judgment in Singapore and obtained an order for the seizure and sale of a property owned by Hu. She then applied to overturn the registration.
High Court Judge Philip Jeyaretnam found that the promissory note was ‘consideration for — and inextricable from — the arrangement’ allowing Hu to gamble on credit. Venetian had provided the credit through casino chips.
Singapore’s Civil Law Act bars court actions to recover money won on a wager. While Singapore law contains specific exceptions for locally licensed casinos, the court noted that no equivalent exception applies to foreign operators.
The court distinguished a 2004 ruling allowing the registration of an Australian casino debt judgment because it was decided under a different statute that has since been repealed. Hu’s separate arguments concerning notice, fraud and Hong Kong jurisdiction were rejected.
The ruling turns on enforceability in Singapore rather than on the merits of the Hong Kong judgment, three other challenges — notice, fraud and Hong Kong jurisdiction — having been rejected. Jeyaretnam noted that casinos ‘can still attempt to enforce their causes of action elsewhere.’
