Xu Kai Accused of Running Illegal Home Casino, Prompting Legal Scrutiny and Industry Fallout

The most concrete episode cited in the online dossier refers to a night on 30 December 2021, when the actor was filming in Hengdian. The video allegedly captures a moment in which Xu Kai wins 8,000 RMB in just over ten minutes at a card table in his home. A friend is shown transferring the winnings in three installments of 2,000 RMB each via WeChat. The post also includes a series of WeChat chat screenshots in which “card friends” discuss stakes, payouts, and the logistics of meeting at the actor’s “luxury house” – a property described as having been “converted into a private casino.” The poster claims that the gambling habit has persisted for several years, with the alleged host both facilitating the games and profiting from them.

The allegations have triggered an immediate flurry of commentary from legal experts and industry observers. Under China’s criminal code and the Public Security Administration Punishment Law, organized gambling can carry administrative detention, fines, and, in more serious cases, imprisonment. If the accusations are verified, Xu could face both criminal prosecution for operating an illegal gambling venue and administrative penalties for violating public order. Lawyers quoted on Weibo warn that even if the sums involved are relatively modest, the fact that a public figure is alleged to have coordinated the activity could lead to a “severe” punitive response, ranging from short‑term detention to a multi‑year prison term, depending on how the authorities classify the case.

The story also resurfaced a personal dispute that has lingered in the public eye. Xu’s former girlfriend, Xu Lisha, who was briefly linked to the actor in 2022, posted – and later deleted – a tweet that seemed to confirm the existence of the gambling sessions. In her original post she asked for an apology from Xu and claimed that she had previously shared information about his misconduct, adding that she was being harassed by his fan base. After the post was removed, she suggested that the ensuing “online bullying” forced her to withdraw the statement, which has only deepened the controversy. Her involvement has prompted a chorus of supporters to accuse the internet of a coordinated smear campaign, while detractors argue that her retraction is indicative of pressure from a powerful fan network.

Fans of Xu Kai have taken to the comment sections in droves, and the reaction is sharply divided. Some users dismiss the evidence as fabricated, pointing out that the amounts cited are “negligible” and that the police response – a terse acknowledgment that the matter is under investigation – does not constitute any formal finding. One defender wrote, “A person’s character, quality and upbringing cannot be faked… he respects women, feeds stray animals, helps friends – he can’t be that bad.” Another, more skeptical, said, “Even if it’s true, who are you trying to scare with a few thousand yuan?”

Other commentators view the claims as credible, largely because they stem from Xu Lisha, who had previously provided evidence of infidelity during their relationship. “She first supported the accusations, then backed off because of harassment,” a user noted, implying that the smear narrative may be a defensive reaction to the backlash. The police’s acknowledgment – that they are looking into the report – has been interpreted by some as a sign that the authorities are taking the matter seriously, though no official details have been released.

Beyond the courtroom, the scandal could have ripple effects across China’s entertainment industry. Agents and production companies have traditionally relied on stars’ immaculate public images to secure brand endorsements and high‑budget projects. If a prominent actor is found to have facilitated illegal gambling, advertising contracts could be terminated in accordance with “morality clauses” that many agencies are increasingly inserting into agreements. Brands, already wary after a string of celebrity scandals, may demand more rigorous background checks before signing a celebrity to a campaign, or insert punitive “clean‑record” stipulations that give them the right to walk away if a star’s conduct tarnishes the brand.

Industry insiders suggest that the case may prompt a tightening of internal controls within talent agencies. “We could see agencies add stricter moral conduct clauses to contracts, and managers like Yu Ma – who is rumored to be Xu’s current manager – will likely be compelled to monitor off‑stage behavior more closely,” one source told a Beijing‑based trade publication. The Chinese Ministry of Culture and Tourism, which oversees the broadcast industry, has previously issued guidelines on artist conduct; a high‑profile legal breach could spur the regulator to issue more forceful directives, potentially including temporary bans on broadcasting an actor’s past work while investigations are pending.

From a broader social perspective, the episode adds to ongoing debates about the responsibilities of public figures in a digital age where fans can instantly amplify both praise and condemnation. The discussion on Weibo has veered into the role of celebrities as role models, especially for young fans who idolize them. Critics argue that an actor who allegedly profits from gambling – a habit outright illegal in China – undermines legal norms and sends the wrong message to impressionable audiences. Proponents of a more lenient view counter that “private entertainment among friends” should not be criminalized if it does not involve large‑scale commercial operations.

The legal discourse has also brought renewed attention to the specific statutes that govern gambling in China. Under the Criminal Law, organizing or participating in illegal gambling can be punished by up to three years in prison, and the “illegal gambling” charge can carry even harsher penalties if the activity is deemed organized or if it leads to large financial losses. The Public Security Administration Punishment Law allows for detention of up to fifteen days and a fine of up to 5,000 yuan for minor infractions, but the law can be applied more stringently when the offender is a public figure whose conduct is perceived to erode social morality.

As of the latest updates, no official statement has been released by Xu Kai’s representatives or the production houses currently employing him. The management team, possibly led by Yu Ma, is expected to issue a response once the police conclude their investigation. For now, the Weibo hashtag continues to climb, reflecting both the public’s appetite for scandal and the shifting expectations of moral accountability placed on China’s brightest stars.

The unfolding case will likely serve as a litmus test for how quickly China’s entertainment sector can adapt to heightened scrutiny, whether legal repercussions will be swift, and how fan culture will evolve when the line between personal indulgence and criminal conduct is drawn in the highly public arena of social media.