Inside Asian Gaming

IAG MAR 2021年3月 亞博匯 70 COLUMNISTS While acknowledging they are different creatures, I think it is instructive to compare – if only briefly for context, perspective and perhaps contrasts in approach – the NSW Special Commission of Inquiry into the Ruby Princess in April 2020. The Ruby Princess Inquiry was triggered following a COVID-19 outbreak when more than 2,650 people disembarked the cruise vessel without being tested. The outbreak has been associated with around 1,000 COVID-19 infections and 28 deaths. The Ruby Princess Inquiry was efficiently conducted and found “serious”, “inexcusable” and “inexplicable” mistakes by NSW Health, but made limited recommendations, saying health authorities had recognized mistakes made, and would “do things differently if they had their time again.” Commissioner Bret Walker SC observed in the introduction and overview to the Special Commission of Inquiry into the Ruby Princess Report: “The Commission is fulfilling an executive, not judicial, function. Second, hindsight is used throughout the Report in order best to inform as to what went wrong and how it might be avoided in future. That exercise has only limited resemblance, nowhere near complete, to a court’s investigation of sine qua non causation, and to a court’s prospective judgement of alleged failures to achieve a reasonable standard of care.” Without overstating the comparison or in any way diminishing Crown’s corporate governance and AML/ CTF shortcomings – it has much work to do – I think reasonable minds might identify some incongruence. Regulatory contraventions occur; indeed, AML shortcomings appear endemic in some sectors such as financial services. Organizations make missteps and fall short of regulatory obligations and community expectations; however, it is when such conduct is exacerbated by its wilfulness, repeated or ongoing 度地與法庭內前因後果式的調查和法庭對於被指控的過失作出 的預期判決相似但非完整，從而達致一個合理的緊慎程度。」 在不誇大兩者之間的比較或減低皇冠在企業管理及反洗黑 錢/反恐怖主義融資上的缺點的同時(該公司的確需要在這些事情 上下一番功夫)，我認為有理性的人都可能會察覺兩個調查之間的 分別。 違反法規的事時有發生，而在反洗黑錢方面的缺失更是在例 如金融服務等界別亦不罕見。機構總有其失足並且未盡監管義務 及未達公眾期望的時候；可是，當這種行為由於機構的蓄意及重 犯程度或者是否依然持續而變得愈趨嚴重，同時機構對於監管當 局的介入作出無謂的申辦及抵抗，以及沒有能力或意願去跟從一 個大家同意的矯正方案時，則應面對最嚴厲的制裁及最嚴重的後 果。 如果閱讀2020年10月20日由新南威爾斯的酒類及博彩部門 「Liquor & Gaming NSW」發出的一份關於對Dee Why RSL Club 採取紀律行動的結果的新聞稿的話，會對是次討論有所幫助。獨 立酒業和博管理局裁定，該俱樂部的行為有可能會鼓勵博彩活動 的濫用，並且忽視了嚴重的博彩成癮問題。該俱樂部被罰款10萬 澳元，而且被要求向Liquor & Gaming NSW支付該次調查的開支 99628.05澳元。這懲罰驟眼看似乎有點輕手，畢竟該調查發現的 過失直接違反了新南威爾斯博彩監管框架內的兩大主要目的：減 少與濫用博彩活動有關的傷害，以及培養與博彩有關行為的負責 任態度。這結果亦揭露出監管取態以及對於博彩監管框架的完整 性至關重要的負責任博彩義務的分野。 另外，如果稍稍看一下澳洲政府於2017年12月啟動並於 2019年初完成的「銀行業、退休金及金融服務業過失皇家委員會 (FSRC)」調查的話，會發覺該委員會從公眾收到超過1萬宗針對 金融服務機構的投訴，揭露了很多金融服務機構在過去多年的過 犯，以及他令到很多顧客蒙受的大量損失，還有這些機構所累積 的豐厚利潤。FSRC同時發現這些機構的行為很多時候都違反法