Wynn Macau Wins $4.2 Million Judgement Against Punter

This story was published more than 5 years ago.

Recently a Malaysian court ruled that a gambler that took out $5.1 million in credit from the Wynn Macau owes the casino the $4.2 million following a legal challenge.

Paul Poh Yang Hong, a fund manager from Malaysia took out a credit line from the casino when he was visiting the resort located just off the shore from Hong Kong. The debtor alleged that the credit line was a wagering contract, which is not enforceable in Malaysia, but Wynn lawyers contended that the loan was indeed a credit line.

Judge S. Nantha Balan heard the argument, during which Hong said that he never was aware that he entered a credit agreement with Wynn. The judge didn't buy it, and ruled that he owes the casino $4.2 million plus interest. It's the first time in Malaysia's history that a casino has been able to chase down a debt in court, as gambling itself is largely prohibited in the country.

Speaking about the case Wynn legal counsel Vincent Law said, "If there is no appeal, I believe this judgment today will be the law in Malaysia for the foreseeable future… It is a good sign for the whole gaming industry."

About the author

Kingston Li // Asia Correspondent
Kingston Li
Kingston is a big fan of Baccarat and Texas Hold'em Poker and has tested his skills in tournaments around Asia and the world. He covers the latest gambling news from Asia for Casino Listings. In his spare time, Kingston enjoys hiking, video gaming, and playing disc golf.
2 replies • Last post


High RollerHigh Roller
coolsongss's picture
Joined: 2 Dec 2014
Posts: 2832
Thanks given: 2119
Thanks received: 1417
23 January 2019 - 6:10pm

Huh, I didn't know that some casinos give a loan to players, who probably are a VIP players.

I went to Wynn Macau a few times before, the facility was very nice and cozy.
But, the minimum bets in most tables were too high to play for me.


Forum AngelForum Angel
sharpe's picture
Location: Sofia, Bulgaria
Joined: 4 Nov 2014
Posts: 7646
Thanks given: 4239
Thanks received: 1165
29 January 2019 - 7:17pm

Well, for once I'm on the house's side.

I in fact though the guy has won that trial when he's about to pay just $4.2 from the $5.1 he borrowed but obviously he decided he could got away with this as it's probably an existing practice out there..not this time apparently..