A former Crown Resorts executive has failed to recover substantial interest on a massive gambling debt incurred at Crown Perth nearly a decade ago. A Hong Kong court ruled that her claims simply lacked basic commercial credibility.

Chua Eh Fong, who was vice president of marketing at Crown, sought 24% annual interest on AUD 60 million (approximately $41.6 million) in losses accumulated by Chinese billionaire Huang Youlong in 2015. Deputy High Court Judge Alan Kwong dismissed her case outright, finding her account fundamentally implausible and ordering her to cover legal costs.

The Original Transaction

Back in February 2015, Huang visited Crown Perth already carrying substantial obligations to other casinos. Crown declined to extend further credit, so Chua arranged a AUD 40 million facility through junket operator Suncity. Huang exhausted those funds within 48 hours, then obtained an additional AUD 20 million, which he lost just as quickly.

Chua’s Failed Interest Claim

Chua alleged she had entered into two separate oral credit agreements with Huang that entitled her to charge the 24% interest rate. The judge found this entirely unconvincing. Her own WeChat messages from years prior contradicted her testimony. More damaging still, she had never mentioned any interest claim during a January 2016 settlement meeting attended by Suncity founder Alvin Chau.

Judge Kwong characterised her assertions as “afterthoughts” introduced only when litigation commenced. He also rejected Huang’s medical excuse for failing to testify, deeming it unreliable.

How the Debt Was Actually Settled

The AUD 60 million got repaid through various channels, but not through Chua’s claimed interest arrangements. Huang issued three cheques of approximately AUD 11 million each (one dishonoured), transferred a Hong Kong property valued at AUD 13.3 million to Chua as partial repayment, and provided her with AUD 950,000 as a wedding gift in recognition of her role in managing the situation. By late 2019, the full amount had been repaid to Suncity, which then issued a deed of release.

The case exposes the murky terrain surrounding high-roller credit arrangements and junket operations, where the line between formal commercial terms and personal favours often blurs. For the industry, it’s a hard lesson: even substantial transactions can collapse under legal scrutiny when documentation and contemporaneous evidence don’t support the claims being made.