Inside Asian Gaming

IAG MAY 2020年5月 亞博匯 70 COLUMNISTS enforce sanctions against criminal organizations or behavior. The normative standards to which some would have every jurisdiction aspire are not adopted by either of the two largest gaming jurisdictions on the planet. That demonstrates several things. First, there is no regulatory gold standard. If there was, every jurisdiction would be doing it, or aspiring to. Secondly, neither jurisdiction has the luxury of a large, diversified economic base; pragmatism requires them to be rather more expansive and progressive in their approach to their principal industry. That doesn’t mean abandoning standards, rather working co-operatively with the regulated to progressively lift them. Macau’s most recent AML Mutual Evaluation is testament to the wisdom of this approach. Regulation 6/2002 came into force in Macau when GGR attributable to junket business was in excess of 70% of all casino GGR. Heavy-handed regulation and a high bar for suitability could conceivably have brought down the SAR, and left China with a problem it could not easily address. In part, this explains the PRC’s continuous exhortations to the SAR to diversify its economic base … clearly easier said than done, given little obvious progress has been made in the past 10 years. Finally, to tax considerations. Law 16/2001 introduced the concept of a withholding tax on junket commissions. Junket remuneration received by way of a share of GGR enjoys an exemption from income tax, due to the fact that gross revenue is taxed in the hands of the concessionaire deriving it. While the full 5% has never been adopted, the point of the The current regulatory regime has delivered results consistent with context, circumstance and the public interest of the people of both Macau and arguably the PRC. 現時的監管制度所帶出的結果完全符合澳 門以至整個中國的實際情況以及公眾利益。