A Taiwanese high roller who lost HK$300 million in non-negotiable chips at a Macau resort in 2020 must repay Melco Resorts HK$320.47 million. The Taiwan High Court upheld a first-instance ruling on Tuesday, rejecting his forgery and cash-credit defence.
Melco Resorts Taiwan judgment: the court ordered repayment of HK$320.47 million, comprising HK$289.57 million principal after commissions and 29.25% annual default interest on a HK$300 million chip grant in May 2020. The ruling remains subject to appeal.
- HK$320.47M Judgment Upheld in Taiwan
- Melco Resorts Taiwan: The Forgery Defence
- Why Macau Gaming Debts Land in Taipei
A Taiwanese high roller who lost HK$300 million in non-negotiable chips at a Macau resort in 2020 must repay Melco Resorts HK$320.47 million. The Taiwan High Court upheld a first-instance ruling on Tuesday, rejecting both his forgery defence and his argument that supplying chips does not create a monetary loan.
The property where the dispute arose was not named in the reporting. The man, surnamed Ku, was a VVIP at Melco since 2018 and had a record of settling gaming debts on time, according to the court’s decision as reported by Taiwan’s Chinese-language press.
Melco Resorts Taiwan: HK$320.47M Judgment Upheld
Melco Resorts said Mr Ku received HK$300 million in non-negotiable chips on May 17, 2020, exactly his approved credit limit, then gambled the whole amount away. The firm said it agreed to postpone signing a credit slip because of his repayment history and his belief that signing on the spot could harm his gambling luck.
He also was owed HK$10.43 million in commissions and rebates. Subtract that, and the principal balance was about HK$289.57 million. Under the agreement, overdue balances attracted default interest at three times Macau’s statutory 9.75 percent rate. By April 9, 2021, principal and interest had reached nearly HK$320.47 million, with 29.25 percent annual interest accruing from April 10 until full repayment.
This is not a routine VIP balance-sheet dispute. The claim follows Mr Ku losing his entire approved credit line in a single day, with the casino deferring paperwork at the table — a scenario that makes credit-limit enforcement a live issue for Macau operators.
Melco Resorts Taiwan: The Forgery Defence Collapses
Mr Ku argued that the documents submitted by the operator were forged or altered. He also attacked the authenticity and completeness of the casino footage. The Taiwan High Court reviewed the footage with employee testimony and immigration records, concluding that he did receive the chips and gambled in Macau on May 17, 2020.
He then claimed that handing him chips instead of cash does not create a monetary loan. The court rejected the argument. Under the arrangement, he was entitled to cash credit that he exchanged for chips of equivalent value, and Melco was legally authorised to grant gaming credit in Macau. His commission and rebate claims were deducted from the balance, leaving HK$289.57 million as the enforceable principal.
The court also ruled on jurisdiction. The credit agreements pointed to Macau courts, but that choice was not exclusive, so Melco could bring the claim in Taiwan. Both parties agreed the arrangements were governed by Macau law. That split of jurisdiction will likely set precedent for future gaming debt cases involving cross-border VIP customers.
Why Macau Gaming Debts Land in Taipei
Macau’s gaming debt framework has created a predictable pattern. A customer receives chips against approved credit, loses the money, and the operator seeks recovery from his home jurisdiction when the local route stalls. Taiwan’s High Court confirmed that a Macau law contract does not bind the parties exclusively to Macau courts, so operators can sue in a more convenient forum.
The debt also survived public-order scrutiny. Mr Ku was an adult who knowingly obtained lawful gaming credit in Macau, so the loan cannot be invalidated under Taiwan’s public order or good morals rule. That decision means Taiwanese courts are now prepared to enforce Macau credit arrangements even against a VIP’s objections about document authenticity.
AGBrief has covered the wider Macau gaming debt trend, from high-profile casino loans to the court cases behind them.
The case is a reminder of how much weight VIP credit carries in an integrated resort. Mr Ku’s repayment record was good until 2020, and the HK$300 million grant was his entire approved limit. Melco’s position was straightforward: the chips were equivalent to cash credit, the credit line was lawful, and the debt was recoverable.
Frequently Asked Questions
What did the Taiwan High Court rule for Melco Resorts?
The court upheld a first-instance judgment ordering the high roller to repay Melco HK$320.47 million, comprising HK$289.57 million principal plus 29.25 percent annual default interest. The decision remains subject to appeal.
Why was the HK$300 million chip grant treated as a loan?
The court found that the parties agreed Mr Ku would draw cash credit and exchange it for chips of equal value. Melco was legally authorised to grant gaming credit in Macau, so the chip transfer was equivalent to a monetary loan rather than an informal casino arrangement.
How does the 29.25 percent interest rate work?
Macau’s statutory rate is 9.75 percent. The agreement set default interest at three times that rate for overdue balances, giving 29.25 percent annually. Interest accrued from April 10, 2021, until the debt was repaid in full.
Why can Melco sue in Taiwan over a Macau debt?
The credit agreements named Macau courts, but the choice was not exclusive. Melco Resorts brought the claim in Taiwan, and the court accepted jurisdiction while confirming that the agreement is governed by Macau law.
What was the high roller’s forgery defence?
Mr Ku claimed that documents submitted by Melco had been forged or altered and challenged the completeness of the casino footage. The court examined the footage with employee testimony and immigration records, finding that he received the chips and gambled in Macau on May 17, 2020.
This article has been thoroughly researched and reviewed by the CasinoBait editorial team to ensure accuracy and relevance for Asian casino players.
