Although they have been active in Macau long before the liberalisation of gaming activity, gaming promoters had their role legally recognised by Law No. 16/2001 and their activity regulated by Administrative Regulation No. 6/2002. They have since played a vital role in the gaming industry, cooperating with gaming concessionaires, bringing clients from different places around the world, and providing facilities such as accommodation, catering, and transportation. As some gaming promoters (commonly referred to as junkets) were also managing gaming rooms, they would also provide cage services, including custody of chips or monies resulting from, or to be used in, gambling activities.
Since around September 2015, a significant number of cases have hit the Macau courts where, for various reasons, junket operators were found in default, vis-à-vis alleged gamblers who deposited monies or chips with them, on their obligation to honour their custodial arrangements. A hot topic in such proceedings was the limits and the requisites to impose sentencing on concessionaires, on the basis of their joint liability with the gaming promoters under the general provision of Article 29 of Administrative Regulation No. 6/2002.
These cases set in motion a political and legal review of the role of junkets and their relationships with customers, concessionaires, and the Macau government. In December 2022, Law No. 16/2022 was published in the Official Gazette, setting out the revised regime for casino gambling operations, and putting an end to the gaming promoters’ ability to accept deposits. In this new regime, only concessionaires are permitted to accept the deposit of funds and chips destined for gaming.
However, a number of these cases are ongoing and the scope, limits, and requirements of the joint liability of the concessionaires for prior deposits accepted by gaming promoters is still undergoing discussion and pending judicial ruling.
Article 29 of Administrative Regulation No. 6/2002 states that concessionaires are jointly and severally liable with gaming promoters for the activities carried out in casinos by promoters themselves, their managers, and employees, as well as for their compliance with applicable laws and regulations.
When does such liability actually apply?
It is now a matter of public record that, aside from gaming-related deposits, some customers of gaming promoters were making such deposits just as another investment; e.g., to take part in the promoter’s other business (such as real estate), or as interest-earning-only deposits.
Should concessionaires pay this bill?
On November 19 2021, the Court of Final Appeal ruled that concessionaires are jointly liable with the promoter for the repayment of deposits to clients (Award No. 45/2019). This landmark ruling established, among other things, that the scope of such liability is limited to the activities typically carried out by promoters in casinos for the benefit of concessionaires, as set forth in the law and the contracts executed with the concessionaires. The rationale being that only in such cases may a concessionaire reasonably be subject to, and expect to bear, joint and several liability for damages caused to third parties as a result of such promotion activities.
In other words, deposits made by customers with gaming promoters for purposes other than gaming will not be protected or enforceable vis-à-vis concessionaires.
To improve legal certainty, Article 63 of Law No. 16/2022 (which entered into force on December 20 2022) introduced an interpretative provision regarding the joint liability provided for in Administrative Regulation No. 6/2002. It provides that the acceptance at the casino of deposits of funds or chips belonging to others by promoters, their managers, and staff, as well as by employees of promoters who perform duties at the casino, shall only be considered an activity carried out in casinos – for the purposes of enabling the application of Article 29 of Administrative Regulation No. 6/2002 – when the funds or chips were used in casino games or were the result of such games.
This would put an end to a number of questions and theories about the actual scope of the concessionaires’ joint liability that could still be outstanding after the ruling of the Court of Final Appeal.
However, there was still the question as to whether concessionaires could be made accountable for the liabilities of their promoters on grounds of general tort liability, rather than by the special regime of the gaming law. The benefit lies in the fact that, pursuant to Article 477 of the Civil Code, the imposition of tort liability to concessionaires does not require a connection between the deposit and gaming activity.
This approach was ruled out by the Macau Court of Final Appeal, in a ruling dated September 17 2025. The panel of three judges unanimously decided that, whereas the interpretative provision introduced by Law No. 16/2022 has retrospective effect, the assessment of the joint liability of the concessionaire – for the reimbursement of deposits made with the junket operators – shall be made in light of the interpretative rules (Award No. 124/2022).
What is the outlook regarding the joint liability of concessionaires in Macau?
Although the Macau legal system is not based on precedent, rulings of the Court of Final Appeal tend to be followed by the lower courts and by the Court of Final Appeal itself in future rulings. It is therefore expected that Award No. 124/2022 will decisively consolidate the understanding that joint liability of concessionaires for monies or chips deposited with gaming promoters can only be enforced when the plaintiffs can evidence their direct utilisation in gambling.
