Courts' views toward gambling have changed over the years. In the past, it was common to find that public policy would not allow foreign judgments on gambling debts. Now, one has to be knowledgeable of a particular jurisdiction's proclivities toward gambling debts in trying to recover the debt.

For instance in 2008, a Florida bankruptcy judge refused to enforce a gambling debt incurred on a cruise ship. There, the court decided that such debts are void under Florida law.

However, Nevada is not so limiting. In 2009, the Bellagio in Las Vegas sued accused ponzi-schemer, Allen Stanford, for repayment of a gambling debt of more than a quarter million dollars. But, that suit still begs the question. Where can the Bellagio enforce or recover a gambling debt. That inquiry requires one to determine where assets are located for collection. Once the jurisdiction is determined, then the issue arises how to recover on those assets.

A recent case in Singapore is illustrative. There, Caesar's Palace asked a Singapore court to stop businessman Poh Soon Kiat from transferring his share in a California property to a British Virgin Island company. The Singapore court overruled the High Court in permitting an overseas casino from enforcing a foreign court decision. The court mentioned that it would allow a foreign casinos to recover lost cash if they were applying a fixed sum. In other words, the casino could recover a fixed sum of money, but not property. If a judgment for a fixed sum is obtained, then execution proceedings can be used to seize a gambler's assets and claiming the debts for the sale in Singapore.

Recovering gambling debts in foreign jurisdictions are not any different than recovering other kinds of contract or tort claims. One needs to identify where recovery can be achieved and determine how the foreign laws apply to permit a recovery.