Four Macau casino operators have confirmed civil compensation claims amounting in aggregate to just over HKD134.7 million (US$17.3 million) against former Tak Chun Group junket boss Levo Chan Weng Lin and a number of other defendants, in relation to allegations of their criminal conduct regarding VIP gaming business.
The information was given in a press release on Monday evening, from the Court of First Instance, the bench hearing the criminal case, which started that day. The court had earlier said the criminal trial will not itself deal with the civil compensation matters.
Wynn Resorts (Macau) SA has asked for just under HKD48.3 million. SJM Resorts SA has asked for just over HKD35.6 million; while Venetian Macau Ltd asked for just under HKD47.0 million in compensation. Those claims are against individuals involved in the criminal trial.
MGM Grand Paradise SA is seeking just above HKD3.8 million from several defendants in the criminal case and – uniquely among the complaining casino operators – against two companies, respectively Companhia de Promoção de Jogos Tak Chun SA, and Grupo Levo Lda.
Companhia de Promoção de Jogos Tak Chun SA is a licensed junket entity in Macau. Grupo Levo Lda was allegedly established by Levo Chan for the purpose of engaging in under-table betting business and “avoiding police investigation”, according to the criminal indictment seen by GGRAsia.
The Macau government is itself claiming HKD575.2 million – being the amount of gaming tax it estimates it lost as a result of under-the-table bets alleged in the criminal case, as mentioned in Monday’s hearing.
The Monday press release from the Court of First Instance mentioned specifically that the individuals Levo Chan, Chan Kam Chi, Wong Pui Keng, Wayne Lio Weng Hang, Cheong Sao Pek, Lee Tat Chuen and Choi Wai Chan, were being pursued for compensation regarding the tax matter.
The Court of First Instance document added that Macau’s Public Prosecutions Office was assisting with all the claims.
The Macau unit of casino operator Galaxy Entertainment Group Ltd is also a complainant against Mr Chan, though no compensation claim amount has so far been made public. The company sent a legal representative to attend the Monday hearing of the criminal case.
The Court of First Instance said in the press statement it was “not in a position to assess one by one” the claims sought by the complainants in the case, due to the “urgent nature of the criminal proceedings”.
A separate proceeding will decide on the amount of any compensation that might be due the Macau government and the casino-concessionaire complainants.
