A former Crown Resorts marketing boss has failed to convince a Hong Kong judge that she was personally owed interest on the AU$60 million a high roller burned through at Crown Perth over a handful of days in 2015. The credit, the court found, was never hers to lend.
Key takeaways
- The High Court of Hong Kong dismissed Chua Eh Fong's claim for 24% annual interest on Huang Youlong's gambling debt.
- The judge held the credit agreement ran between Huang and Macau junket operator Suncity Group, not Chua.
- Huang lost AU$40m in gaming chips within two days, then lost a further AU$20m chasing it.
- The full AU$60m was repaid directly to Suncity between February 2016 and November 2019.
- Chua was ordered to pay Huang's legal costs.
The High Court of Hong Kong has dismissed a lawsuit brought by a former Crown Resorts marketing executive who tried to recover interest on a AU$60 million gambling debt built up at Crown Perth more than a decade ago.
At the centre of the dispute was Chua Eh Fong, Crown's one-time vice president of marketing, who argued she was entitled to overdue interest at an annual rate of 24%. The court disagreed on a fundamental point: the credit arrangement, it found, sat between the gambler and Macau-based junket operator Suncity Group — Chua was never the creditor.
Two Days, AU$40 Million
The judgment opens a window onto the mechanics of a high-value junket deal struck at the height of the international VIP gambling boom. Huang Youlong — a Singaporean businessman and the former husband of Chinese actress Zhao Wei — flew to Perth in February 2015 to gamble at Crown's casino, the trip arranged through Chua.
Crown itself would not extend Huang gaming credit. He already carried what the judgment describes as "substantial debts" to other casinos and junket operators. So the company pointed Chua toward Suncity, which proved willing to shoulder the risk.
Under that arrangement Huang picked up AU$40 million in gaming chips. He lost every one of them inside 48 hours.
"On 25 February 2015, [Huang] flew to Perth in order to gamble at the Casino using the gaming chips of AUD 40 million procured and/or arranged by [Chua] pursuant to the 1st Credit Agreement. It transpired that [Huang] soon lost all these gaming chips at the Casino within 2 days."
— From the judgment
Rather than walk away, Huang asked for more. Chua and Suncity's investors put together a second tranche of AU$20 million in chips on comparable repayment terms. That went the same way as the first.
What followed was a slow, untidy attempt to settle up. Huang handed over three cheques worth roughly AU$11 million as collateral, one of which bounced when Chua presented it. He also put down a HK$1.8 million deposit toward a Hong Kong property bought in Chua's name, but never managed to fund the balance.
"It Does Not Sit Comfortably With Basic Commercial Common Sense"
The litigation turned on a single question: had Chua personally contracted with Huang in a way that entitled her to charge interest? She said yes, pointing to verbal agreements covering both the AU$40 million line and the AU$20 million top-up. Huang said no — the money came from Suncity, and Suncity had been paid in full.
Deputy High Court Judge Alan Kwong sided with Huang, according to The West Australian, concluding that the creditor relationship ran to the junket operator and that no agreement existed making Huang personally indebted to Chua.
"It was inherently unlikely that Ms Fong (who was employed by Crown and who was responsible for arranging Mr Youlong to obtain gaming credit) would be treated as the principal who personally contracted with Mr Youlong for the provision of the gaming credit. In my view, it is artificial to suggest that Ms Fong would enter into contractual dealings with Mr Youlong on a personal basis. […] All in all, [Ms Fong's] case does not sit comfortably with basic commercial common sense and ordinary logic of events. I am not persuaded that it is credible."
— Deputy High Court Judge Alan Kwong
The judge further observed that Chua's interest claims surfaced only late in the dispute. She was ordered to pay Huang's legal costs.
A Portrait of How Junkets Actually Worked
Beyond the money, the ruling is a document of an era. It sets out plainly how junket financing operated at its peak: Suncity's investors supplied the capital that backed gaming credit, letting the junket guarantee chips for whales while taking a cut of the commissions their play generated.
Court records show Huang settled the full AU$60 million directly with Suncity, in instalments running from February 2016 to November 2019. Suncity owner Alvin Chau intervened at one stage; once the money landed, the junket issued a deed of release confirming the debt was cleared.
That history is why the case still resonates. Junket relationships became the central charge in the inquiries that engulfed Australia's casino sector, with regulators scrutinising Crown's dealings with operators like Suncity and finding money laundering exposure and governance failures. Crown severed its junket ties in 2020 as the scrutiny intensified, and the Perth property drew regulatory action after the Western Australian casino inquiry picked over its past conduct.
The company is now owned by private investment firm Blackstone and has spent the years since rebuilding its compliance, anti-money laundering and harm-minimisation programmes in an ongoing effort to hold onto its Australian licences. The Hong Kong judgment is a reminder of the world those reforms were designed to leave behind.
