TUI rejects final appeal in RMB8.61 million loan dispute

The Court of Final Appeal (TUI) has rejected a final appeal in a long-running loan dispute, confirming that the defendants must pay RMB 8.61 million after finding that the loan was not intended for gambling. The ruling, issued on August 19, 2026, by the Office of the President of the Court of Final Appeal of the Macau Special Administrative Region, closes a case that began with a 2011 loan agreement.

According to TUI, the dispute originated on February 2, 2011, when Individuals A and B entered into a loan agreement under which B borrowed RMB 10 million from A for a term of three months, with repayment due by May 1, 2011. Individuals C, D and E agreed to guarantee the loan.

When B failed to repay by the deadline, A filed a declaratory action in 2021 in the Court of First Instance against all four defendants, seeking payment of the full amount plus interest.

The Court of First Instance partially upheld the action, ordering B, as debtor, and C, D and E, as guarantors, to pay A RMB 8.61 million plus interest. The defendants appealed to the Court of Second Instance, which dismissed their appeal and confirmed the lower court’s judgment.

This then led them to appeal to TUI.

At the highest court, the defendants raised several issues, including claims that the court had failed to rule on certain matters and that part of the loan had been made at a casino, creating a natural obligation that was not legally enforceable.

Regarding the failure-to-rule claim, the court stated that one defendant had appealed a preliminary ruling but that the appeal was deemed abandoned due to a failure to submit arguments on time. The court said this decision constituted formal res judicata under Article 575 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

On the gambling issue, the defendants argued that the burden of proof should shift to the plaintiff to show that the loan was not for gambling. The court disagreed.

The defendants then filed a statement of objection regarding the deliberations of the Court of Final Appeal, alleging an omission of pronouncement. The court found no such omission and criticized the move as an attempt to relitigate settled issues.

As a result, the court deemed the four defendants to be litigants in bad faith and ordered each to pay a fine equivalent to 20 UC.

The judgment is recorded under case number 84/2024-I.