Inside Asian Gaming

INSIDE ASIAN GAMING | August 2010 34 DICJ’s workers and its service providers. Loan sharking continues to be an issue in Macau. A total of 153 cases were registered between June 2009 and May 2010. The fact the figure actually represents a decrease of 15.47% on the equivalent period a year earlier iii suggests that Macau’s legal and administrative efforts to regulate the gambling credit market are working iv . Ultimately, the aim must be to make the legal gambling credit system so efficient and so equitable for the parties involved and the enforcement against unauthorised lending so exacting that the commercial demand for loan sharking falls away. It happened in Las Vegas, so it can also happen in Macau. Bruno Nunes is a lawyer based in Macau with a practice focused on gaming, corporate and intellectual property law. bnunes@ bnlawmacau.com This civil liability has not yet been tested in the Macau courts with regard to debts contracted by high rollers from mainland China. Any such judicial ruling in Macau against a passport holder from the People’s Republic of China would probably need to be confirmed and executed upon by a court in China. That’s because the respondent’s assets are likely to be domiciled there. Given that gambling debts are not recognised under PRC law as enforceable contracts, a PRC court may seek to invoke a statute of limitation of liability. That right comes from an agreement between mainland China and Macau concerning the reciprocal confirmation and execution of judicial decisions in civil and commercial matters. Law No. 5/2004 requires all of Macau’s government departments to cooperate with the DICJ in its task of supervising the gambling credit system. The practical effect of that is to create extra safeguards against the establishment of unauthorised, ‘underground’ credit networks. If an authorised gaming credit provider seriously infringes any legal or regulatory provision, or acts incompetently, the government has the right to suspend that provider’screditactivityorimposeconditions upon the provider. That’s notwithstanding any criminal and administrative procedures that may be launched. If the DICJ suspects a person or organisation of providing unauthorised credit, it can demand clarification and inspect the location in which the alleged activity has taken place. If evidence is gathered to support the allegation, the DICJ will prepare a report and submit it, as quickly as practicable, to the Public Prosecution Office. Article 16 of Law No. 5/2004 protects legally authorised credit providers from being classified as ‘loan sharks’. Under Macau’s criminal law, loan sharking is punishable with up to three years in prison or up to five years if an aggravated offence. Penalties Further aggravating factors, such as where illegal gaming credit providers keep hold of the identification document of the person to whom they have granted credit, can result in a prison sentence of up to eight years. In all three scenarios, the court can ban the offenders from entering any Macau casino gaming rooms for at least two years and up to 10 years. Other provisions of Law No. 5/2004, namely Articles 9, 10 and 11, impose a duty ongaming credit providers and their workers to act in a prudent manner, complying with any laws, regulations and internal company rules of professional conduct. They also have a duty of confidentiality regarding financial information relating to credit provision. That duty of confidentiality also applies to the Log onto www.asgam. com for the latest industry intelligence and a subscription to our digital edition—all absolutely free A Sure Bet iii & iv Speech of the Judiciary Police Director, Wong Sio Chak, made on the Judiciary Police Day Prize Delivery Ceremony held on July 15 Regulation