The Court of Second Instance (TSI) has voided a decision taken by the Court of First Instance (TJB) in the case of an individual who is said to have invested money in VIP junket operator Dore Entertainment, the Office of the Court of Final Appeal informed in a statement.
Dore had operated VIP rooms at the Wynn Macau resort before an embezzlement scandal saw the disappearance of hundreds of millions of U.S. dollars.
In the days that followed news of the scandal, investors began to demand their money returned. Some of them filed lawsuits against the casino operator and gaming promoter.
According to the Court’s statement, the TJB had ruled that Dore and Wynn would not have to repay an amount of HKD17 million to one of four investors that filed complaints against the companies, as the money he was said to have deposited could not be considered a loan.
But at the court, the investor said that the money he had invested in Dore was not classified as a loan, but instead as a deposit.
In the decision now disclosed by the appeal court, the collective of judges ruled that since the nature of the sum provided had been considered by the TJB as a deposit, the court should have addressed the evidence according to this new definition that was accepted.
“Although the loans were not proven, it was essential to know whether the ‘deposit contract’ mentioned by the [complainant] existed and whether such agreement included a clause for the repayment of the sum, facts that were ignored in the decision [of the TJB],” the judges of the TSI noted in their ruling.
In light of such acknowledgment, the TSI decided that such facts “should be reviewed,” taking into account the “uniformization, harmony, coherence and logic of the sentence.”