- Status
- Judgment entered (judgment)
- As of
- 28 Jan 2022 · read from the court record
- Court
- Tribunal de Última Instância of the Macau SAR · Supreme or high court
- Docket
- Processos 205/2020 (TJB CV1-17-0103-CAO, TSI 168/2020), 34/2020 (CV1-17-0034-CAO, TSI 749/2019), 46/2020 (CV3-17-0028-CAO, TSI 790/2019), 185/2020 (CV1-17-0030-CAO, TSI 78/2020)
- Judge
- Song Man Lei (relatora), José Maria Dias Azedo, Sam Hou Fai
- Filed
- 2017
- Type
- Individual suit, player refund litigation (germany and austria)
- Money
- HKD 2.5m (205/2020), MOP 6.18m (34/2020), MOP 1.03m (46/2020), MOP 1.03m (185/2020) with legal interest; concessionaires jointly liable
- Payout
- No payout exists as of 14 Nov 2026
Status words follow the court record: a complaint states one side's allegations, only the court's orders decide anything. Filing a settlement claim is always free.
What this case is about
On 28 January 2022 the Court of Final Appeal dismissed four pairs of appeals by junkets and their host concessionaires against orders to repay VIP-room deposits taken in 2015, expressly following Proc. 45/2019 and its own decisions of 12 and 19 January 2022 (Procs. 50/2020, 76/2020, 121/2020). The judgments settle that proof of a deposit slip suffices and that the concessionaire answers solidarily under art. 29 of Administrative Regulation 6/2002. Press reporting in May 2022 counted nine such final rulings against Wynn Macau and MGM China, with MGM estimating exposure of HKD 202.7 million.
What this case is about
On 28 January 2022 the Tribunal de Última Instância (Court of Final Appeal) of the Macau SAR decided four pairs of appeals in Processos 205/2020, 34/2020, 46/2020 and 185/2020. Depositors had sued gaming promoters (junkets) and the casino concessionaires hosting them for the return of VIP-room deposits, with legal interest.
The claims rested on deposit slips and on the concessionaire's solidary liability under art. 29 of Administrative Regulation 6/2002. This is a Macau case, but it sits with the other Online Casino Refund Litigation on getting player money back from the house.
Who is covered
The plaintiffs are VIP-room depositors, anonymized in the published judgments. The defendants are a gaming promoter and a casino concessionaire or sub-concessionaire in each case, also anonymized.
Press reports linked the rooms to Dore/Wynn and Suncity. The judges were Song Man Lei (relatora), José Maria Dias Azedo and Sam Hou Fai. The concessionaire's group is covered at Wynn Lawsuits.
Is there a payout?
No payout exists in this case as a fund or claim process. The Court of Final Appeal dismissed the junkets' and concessionaires' appeals, so judgments in favor of individual depositors stand, and the record shows no payment.
The four amounts, each with legal interest, are listed below.
| Proceeding | Deposit amount |
|---|---|
| 205/2020 | HKD 2,500,000 (deposit slip of 19 August 2015) |
| 34/2020 | MOP 6,180,000 (of MOP 6,189,000 claimed) |
| 46/2020 | MOP 1,030,000 |
| 185/2020 | HKD 1,000,000, equal to MOP 1,030,000 (slip of 1 May 2015) |
What the court decided
The Court dismissed all four pairs of appeals on 28 January 2022. It expressly followed Proc. 45/2019 and its own decisions of 12 and 19 January 2022 (Procs. 50/2020, 76/2020 and 121/2020).
The judgments settle two points. A deposit slip is enough proof of the deposit. And the concessionaire answers solidarily with the promoter under art. 29 of Administrative Regulation 6/2002. In Proc. 46/2020 the Tribunal de Segunda Instância (TSI 790/2019) had added the concessionaire.
The law has since moved. Law 16/2022 art. 63, an interpretive norm, means that liability now requires proof that the deposited funds or chips were used or won in casino games (TUI 55/2022, 10 October 2025). As of 14 November 2026 the four judgments of 28 January 2022 stand.
Why it matters
The rulings put the cost of junket deposit losses on casino concessionaires. In its 2021 results of 10 March 2022, MGM China recorded a provision of HK$202.7 million for joint liability with promoters in three Macau proceedings, and considered recovery from the promoters remote.
Law 16/2022 also banned junket revenue-sharing and capped promoters to one concessionaire. For how courts treat player money elsewhere, see Can You Get Gambling Losses Back.
Questions people ask
Who pays when a Macau junket keeps a VIP deposit?
Under these rulings, the concessionaire answers solidarily with the promoter under art. 29 of Administrative Regulation 6/2002, and a deposit slip suffices as proof.
Did the Court of Final Appeal order a fund for depositors?
No. It dismissed appeals in four individual cases. No payout fund or claim process exists in this case.
Does the 2022 law change this?
Yes, for later cases. Since Law 16/2022 art. 63, liability requires proof that the funds or chips were used or won in casino games (TUI 55/2022, 10 October 2025).
Related cases
- Dore Entertainment and Wynn Resorts (Macau), Proc. 45/2019 is the leading ruling these judgments follow.
- TUI 55/2022 on Law 16/2022 applies the interpretive norm to junket deposits.
- Ministério Público v Alvin Chau and 20 others (Suncity Group) is the criminal trial of the Suncity promoter group.
Who is involved
Plaintiffs: VIP-room depositors (anonymised)
| Defendants | gaming promoter (junket) 'B'; casino concessionaire or sub-concessionaire 'C' (names anonymised in the published judgments; press identifies Dore/Wynn and Suncity-linked rooms) |
|---|---|
| Judge | Song Man Lei (relatora), José Maria Dias Azedo, Sam Hou Fai |
| Claims |
|
Is there a payout?
No payout exists in this case as of 14 Nov 2026. The court record shows HKD 2.5m (205/2020), MOP 6.18m (34/2020), MOP 1.03m (46/2020), MOP 1.03m (185/2020) with legal interest; concessionaires jointly liable.
What happens next
No future date is on the record we hold. The case is closed on the record we hold; later appeals or enforcement steps would be added here.
Timeline
2 dated steps on record, oldest first. Future dates come from court notices and can move.
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2017 | Filed |
| 28 Jan 2022 | Judgment entered |
Documents and sources
5 primary sources (court file, administrator notice, regulator) and 0 secondary. Press is supporting evidence only.
- Docket: court.gov.mo
- Court document: court.gov.mo
- Court document: court.gov.mo
- Court document: court.gov.mo
- Press coverage: macaubusiness.com
| What it supports | Source | Type | Retrieved |
|---|---|---|---|
| TUI Proc. 205/2020, 28 January 2022, HKD 2.5m deposit of 19 August 2015, appeals dismissed, follows 45/2019; Procs. 205/2020 (CV1-17-0103-CAO, TSI 168/2020, HKD 2,500,000, deposit slip 19 August 2015), 34/2020 (CV1-17-0034-CAO, TSI 749/2019, MOP 6,180,000 awarded of MOP 6,189,000 claimed), 46/2020 (CV3-17-0028-CAO, TSI 790/2019, MOP 1,030,000, TSI added the concessionaire), 185/2020 (CV1-17-0030-CAO, TSI 78/2020, HKD 1,000,000 = MOP 1,030,000, slip 1 May 2015); all 28 January 2022, Song Man Lei relatora, Dias Azedo, Sam Hou Fai; appeals dismissed, art. 29 RA 6/2002 solidary liability following | court.gov.mo | primary | 14 Nov 2026 |
| TUI Proc. 34/2020, 28 January 2022, MOP 6.18m | court.gov.mo | primary | 14 Nov 2026 |
| TUI Proc. 46/2020, 28 January 2022, MOP 1.03m, TSI 790/2019 had added the concessionaire | court.gov.mo | primary | 14 Nov 2026 |
| TUI Proc. 185/2020, 28 January 2022, HKD 1m deposit slip of 1 May 2015 | court.gov.mo | primary | 14 Nov 2026 |
| MGM China 2021 annual results (HKEX, 10 March 2022): provision of HK$202.7 million at 31 December 2021 for joint liability with gaming promoters in three Macau proceedings by depositors of two promoters at MGM MACAU under art. 29 of Administrative Regulation 6/2002; recovery from the promoters considered remote | www1.hkexnews.hk | primary | 14 Nov 2026 |
Related cases
3 cases in the record share parties, claims or a settlement with this one.
| Case | Court | Status |
|---|---|---|
| Wynn Macau jointly liable for Dore junket deposit (TUI 45/2019) | Tribunal de Última Instância (Court of Final Appeal) of the Macau SAR | Judgment entered |
| HKD 25m junket deposit: concessionaire not liable after Law 16/2022 (TUI 55/2022) | Tribunal de Última Instância of the Macau SAR | Judgment entered |
| Alvin Chau / Suncity junket trial (18 years) | Tribunal Judicial de Base (first instance); Tribunal de Segunda Instância; Tribunal de Última Instância | Judgment entered |
Last checked against the sources on 14 Nov 2026. Found an error? Tell us and we correct the record with a dated note.