100% correct. My OKT friend told me see-pay-song. No need to pay taxes too! Please find time to visit him at lor 18. Can't recall the house number. It's a 2 unit set-up. Inside very comfortable and posh - the Lido of fuckshops!
-
IP addresses are NOT logged in this forum so there's no point asking. Please note that this forum is full of homophobes, racists, lunatics, schizophrenics & absolute nut jobs with a smattering of geniuses, Chinese chauvinists, Moderate Muslims and last but not least a couple of "know-it-alls" constantly sprouting their dubious wisdom. If you believe that content generated by unsavory characters might cause you offense PLEASE LEAVE NOW! Sammyboy Admin and Staff are not responsible for your hurt feelings should you choose to read any of the content here. The OTHER forum is HERE so please stop asking.
Is it an offence to play poker (involving money) at home?
- Thread starter macky888
- Start date
100% correct. My OKT friend told me see-pay-song. No need to pay taxes too! Please find time to visit him at lor 18. Can't recall the house number. It's a 2 unit set-up. Inside very comfortable and posh - the Lido of fuckshops!
Just follow what I wrote. If I am not the authority on this subject matter, nobody is!
You sound like a lawyer. Go check the appeal case of some chaps caught gambling at a timber plant in Sungei Kadut. I think it was in 2001. They were engaged in a game of pai kow among business kakis. Then CJ Yong Pung How gave his views concerning what constitutes a CGH. Sadly, YPH failed to define what 'habitual' means.
Z
Zombie
Guest
GoldenDragon
found the news
thanks..
but i think no diff for pai kow
5 October 2000
Straits Times
When a place is not a gambling den.
By ALETHEA LIM.
Even if the sessions are frequent, the premises must be used solely for gambling for it to be illegal, rules CJ
A PLACE does not become a gambling den just because gambling takes place there habitually.
Chief Justice Yong Pung How, who made this ruling, said that even if the sessions are frequent, the premises must be used solely for gambling before it becomes illegal.
If this distinction is not made, he added, everyone - from the hardcore gambling operator who runs an underground casino to the bored housewife who invites her friends for a friendly mahjong game - will be prosecuted.
CJ Yong made his ruling while acquitting a timber-trading merchant for running his office as a gambling den.
Last November, at about 8.20 pm, businessman Chua Seong Soi, 50, and seven of his friends were having a game of pai kow in his Sungei Kadut factory when police raided the place.
All eight men were arrested.
After a trial in a magistrate's court in May, Mr Chua was sentenced to two months' jail and fined $20,000 for running his office as a gambling den.
His seven friends pleaded guilty to gambling in a common gaming house and were fined $1,000 each.
Last month, Mr Chua appealed his sentence and was acquitted.
In his written judgment, the CJ said that photographs of the factory showed that timber was stored there.
Mr Chua's business was genuine and not just a front for a gambling den, he added.
There was also no evidence that the gambling was frequent.
The gambling that took place in the factory was only "incidental" to the business conducted on the premises.
The CJ also noted that the plea of guilt by Mr Chua's friends did not in any way show that the office was used as a gambling den.
Also, the atmosphere that night was "nothing like that in a gaming house".
The stakes were not very high and the excess money from the stakes were used to buy food and drinks.
Moreover, Mr Chua and his friends have been business associates for many years.
Said CJ Yong: "Common sense would thus tell a person that the activity on the premises was strongly characteristic of a friendly game between people who had known each other for a long time."
(c) 2000 Singapore Press Holdings Limited
Straits Times
2 March 2001
Gambling charge - Refund for 7.
By Elena Chong.
SEVEN timber merchants who had earlier been fined for illegal gambling will get their money back after the High Court ruled they were not guilty after all. The men sought to have their records wiped clean after the business associate they were gambling with had his conviction quashed.
Timber merchant Chua Seong Soi, 50, had fought a charge of allowing his office to be used as a common gaming house, even though his seven associates pleaded guilty to illegal gambling. He lost his trial but won his appeal, on the basis that the premises were not used primarily for gambling but for legitimate businesses.
That High Court ruling, made last September, paved the way for the other seven timber merchants to try to get their own convictions overturned. The men - Mr Ng Kim Han, 57, Mr Hoi Kem Pong, 69, Mr Gwee Poo Teo, 55, Mr Lim Geok Chan, 47, Mr Loo Choo Liang, 42, Mr Henry Sim Beng Huat, 47, and Mr Ew Siok Hoe, 57 - applied successfully for a criminal revision which effectively quashes their convictions, wipes their criminal records clean and reimburses their fines.
They had been fined $1,000 each after they were caught playing pai kow, a game of chance, in Mr Chua's office in Sungei Kadut Street 4 on Nov 13, 1999. Mr Chua was sentenced to two months' jail and a $20,000 fine after he was found guilty of permitting his premises to be used as a common gaming house. But he was acquitted on appeal last September when Chief Justice Yong Pung How found that the premises were not a common gaming house. The evidence, said the CJ, showed that the premises were used primarily for the businesses of two substantial companies.
Yesterday, the seven applicants' lawyer, Senior Counsel Jimmy Yim, argued that following the CJ's ruling in Mr Chua's case, his clients should also have their convictions quashed.
He said their earlier pleas of guilt did not preclude them from asking for a revision as they had suffered an injustice. Opposing this, Deputy Public Prosecutor Hay Hung Chun said no gross injustice had been caused, and the seven had chosen to plead guilty of their own accord. The CJ allowed the application of the seven men by setting aside their convictions and ordering that their criminal records be removed.
(c) 2001 Singapore Press Holdings Limited
Office was not gambling den - CJ.
By ALETHEA LIM.
English
(c) 2000 Singapore Press Holdings Limited
Businessman who gambled with associates is cleared of running a den
IT ISN'T illegal to gamble for fun with your friends and colleagues, but if you turn your home or office into a habitual gambling den, that's breaking the law.
The High Court made this distinction yesterday when it acquitted a businessman of running a gambling den in his office.
Timber-trading merchant Chua Seong Soi, 50, who had been jailed and fined in a magistrate's court after a four-day trial in May, was cleared after his appeal was heard by Chief Justice Yong Pung How.
He ruled that Mr Chua's office in Sungei Kadut was not a common gaming house but a place for his business associates to meet and gamble occasionally.
Last November, at about 8.20 pm, Mr Chua and seven others were arrested there while playing pai kow, when officers from the Gambling Suppression Branch raided the place.
He was convicted and sentenced to two months' jail and fined $20,000.
Earlier, the others had each been fined $1,000 after they admitted gambling in a common gaming house.
In the High Court yesterday, Mr Chua's lawyer, Senior Counsel Jimmy Yim, argued that the Sungei Kadut office was used to run a multi-million-dollar business in the day.
Once or twice a month, Mr Chua and his friends would meet there and gamble, but they never met there specifically to gamble.
The seven men arrested with him had been his business associates for many years. They did not gamble with strangers and the stakes were small, mainly between $10 and $50, and were at most $100.
The office had not been ""specially adapted" to serve as a gambling den.
As a gaming table, the men used an office table with a plastic sheet over it, said the lawyer.
There was no croupier, no house commission charges and no one acting as a lookout.
On the day of the raid, the office entrance was not locked and the police had ""simply walked through the door", said Mr Yim.
But Deputy Public Prosecutor Han Ming Kuang argued that people had fled the premises during the raid, showing that the activity was ""suspect".
Mr Yim countered that even if people fled, that did not make the office a gambling den.
In allowing Mr Chua's appeal, CJ Yong said: ""It is a clear case it is not a common gaming house."
(c) 2000 Singapore Press Holdings Limited
found the news
thanks..
but i think no diff for pai kow
5 October 2000
Straits Times
When a place is not a gambling den.
By ALETHEA LIM.
Even if the sessions are frequent, the premises must be used solely for gambling for it to be illegal, rules CJ
A PLACE does not become a gambling den just because gambling takes place there habitually.
Chief Justice Yong Pung How, who made this ruling, said that even if the sessions are frequent, the premises must be used solely for gambling before it becomes illegal.
If this distinction is not made, he added, everyone - from the hardcore gambling operator who runs an underground casino to the bored housewife who invites her friends for a friendly mahjong game - will be prosecuted.
CJ Yong made his ruling while acquitting a timber-trading merchant for running his office as a gambling den.
Last November, at about 8.20 pm, businessman Chua Seong Soi, 50, and seven of his friends were having a game of pai kow in his Sungei Kadut factory when police raided the place.
All eight men were arrested.
After a trial in a magistrate's court in May, Mr Chua was sentenced to two months' jail and fined $20,000 for running his office as a gambling den.
His seven friends pleaded guilty to gambling in a common gaming house and were fined $1,000 each.
Last month, Mr Chua appealed his sentence and was acquitted.
In his written judgment, the CJ said that photographs of the factory showed that timber was stored there.
Mr Chua's business was genuine and not just a front for a gambling den, he added.
There was also no evidence that the gambling was frequent.
The gambling that took place in the factory was only "incidental" to the business conducted on the premises.
The CJ also noted that the plea of guilt by Mr Chua's friends did not in any way show that the office was used as a gambling den.
Also, the atmosphere that night was "nothing like that in a gaming house".
The stakes were not very high and the excess money from the stakes were used to buy food and drinks.
Moreover, Mr Chua and his friends have been business associates for many years.
Said CJ Yong: "Common sense would thus tell a person that the activity on the premises was strongly characteristic of a friendly game between people who had known each other for a long time."
(c) 2000 Singapore Press Holdings Limited
Straits Times
2 March 2001
Gambling charge - Refund for 7.
By Elena Chong.
SEVEN timber merchants who had earlier been fined for illegal gambling will get their money back after the High Court ruled they were not guilty after all. The men sought to have their records wiped clean after the business associate they were gambling with had his conviction quashed.
Timber merchant Chua Seong Soi, 50, had fought a charge of allowing his office to be used as a common gaming house, even though his seven associates pleaded guilty to illegal gambling. He lost his trial but won his appeal, on the basis that the premises were not used primarily for gambling but for legitimate businesses.
That High Court ruling, made last September, paved the way for the other seven timber merchants to try to get their own convictions overturned. The men - Mr Ng Kim Han, 57, Mr Hoi Kem Pong, 69, Mr Gwee Poo Teo, 55, Mr Lim Geok Chan, 47, Mr Loo Choo Liang, 42, Mr Henry Sim Beng Huat, 47, and Mr Ew Siok Hoe, 57 - applied successfully for a criminal revision which effectively quashes their convictions, wipes their criminal records clean and reimburses their fines.
They had been fined $1,000 each after they were caught playing pai kow, a game of chance, in Mr Chua's office in Sungei Kadut Street 4 on Nov 13, 1999. Mr Chua was sentenced to two months' jail and a $20,000 fine after he was found guilty of permitting his premises to be used as a common gaming house. But he was acquitted on appeal last September when Chief Justice Yong Pung How found that the premises were not a common gaming house. The evidence, said the CJ, showed that the premises were used primarily for the businesses of two substantial companies.
Yesterday, the seven applicants' lawyer, Senior Counsel Jimmy Yim, argued that following the CJ's ruling in Mr Chua's case, his clients should also have their convictions quashed.
He said their earlier pleas of guilt did not preclude them from asking for a revision as they had suffered an injustice. Opposing this, Deputy Public Prosecutor Hay Hung Chun said no gross injustice had been caused, and the seven had chosen to plead guilty of their own accord. The CJ allowed the application of the seven men by setting aside their convictions and ordering that their criminal records be removed.
(c) 2001 Singapore Press Holdings Limited
Office was not gambling den - CJ.
By ALETHEA LIM.
English
(c) 2000 Singapore Press Holdings Limited
Businessman who gambled with associates is cleared of running a den
IT ISN'T illegal to gamble for fun with your friends and colleagues, but if you turn your home or office into a habitual gambling den, that's breaking the law.
The High Court made this distinction yesterday when it acquitted a businessman of running a gambling den in his office.
Timber-trading merchant Chua Seong Soi, 50, who had been jailed and fined in a magistrate's court after a four-day trial in May, was cleared after his appeal was heard by Chief Justice Yong Pung How.
He ruled that Mr Chua's office in Sungei Kadut was not a common gaming house but a place for his business associates to meet and gamble occasionally.
Last November, at about 8.20 pm, Mr Chua and seven others were arrested there while playing pai kow, when officers from the Gambling Suppression Branch raided the place.
He was convicted and sentenced to two months' jail and fined $20,000.
Earlier, the others had each been fined $1,000 after they admitted gambling in a common gaming house.
In the High Court yesterday, Mr Chua's lawyer, Senior Counsel Jimmy Yim, argued that the Sungei Kadut office was used to run a multi-million-dollar business in the day.
Once or twice a month, Mr Chua and his friends would meet there and gamble, but they never met there specifically to gamble.
The seven men arrested with him had been his business associates for many years. They did not gamble with strangers and the stakes were small, mainly between $10 and $50, and were at most $100.
The office had not been ""specially adapted" to serve as a gambling den.
As a gaming table, the men used an office table with a plastic sheet over it, said the lawyer.
There was no croupier, no house commission charges and no one acting as a lookout.
On the day of the raid, the office entrance was not locked and the police had ""simply walked through the door", said Mr Yim.
But Deputy Public Prosecutor Han Ming Kuang argued that people had fled the premises during the raid, showing that the activity was ""suspect".
Mr Yim countered that even if people fled, that did not make the office a gambling den.
In allowing Mr Chua's appeal, CJ Yong said: ""It is a clear case it is not a common gaming house."
(c) 2000 Singapore Press Holdings Limited
WELL DONE bro Zombie.
hahaha...lidat also can and then play pai kow somemore.
Yong PH must be intoxicated when he made the judgement.
Best part is the ruling that excess money collected is used to buy food and drinks.
Which gambling den don't collect money to buy food and drinks?
Going by this case, you can use any office, factory and wharehouse for habitual/frequent gambling. of course as pointed out by dragon earlier the grey area is what is meant by "frequently/habitually".
To the layman it means 1 thing, if your pocket is deep is enough, you can always challenge the law and may get a freak result.
Otherwise lanlan, pay the fine and worst get a criminal record against you.
hahaha...lidat also can and then play pai kow somemore.
Yong PH must be intoxicated when he made the judgement.
Best part is the ruling that excess money collected is used to buy food and drinks.
Which gambling den don't collect money to buy food and drinks?
Going by this case, you can use any office, factory and wharehouse for habitual/frequent gambling. of course as pointed out by dragon earlier the grey area is what is meant by "frequently/habitually".
To the layman it means 1 thing, if your pocket is deep is enough, you can always challenge the law and may get a freak result.
Otherwise lanlan, pay the fine and worst get a criminal record against you.
Last edited:
Yong Pung How failed to realise he created a great loophole for gambling den operators to abuse. Premises used solely for gaming huh? Well, I rent a chalet for bbq. Set up tables to game. Chalet cant be used solely for gaming then.
To beat the 'system', don't remain at a place for more than a day. Get moving - call it mobile dens. With such mobility, how to fit the habitual in?
'habitual' means scratching one's balls every other minute even when they are not itchy.
we rotate our poker games every weekend by going to each other's home. and when it is played indoors in a private setting, it is legal in california. in south carolina, playing poker in homes is illegal. when doors are closed, cops ignore. when a garage door is opened, and a group of blokes played in the confines of a garage, they can get arrested if a cop drives by and sees them.
OK. Thanks. Will forward your definition to the AG.
Bro, with that statement, I think you have unwittingly revealed your identity. I know who you are now. You are the Chairman of the Casino Regulatory Authority!
It's common understanding that mahjong and other table games are allowed in Singapore chalets. Chalets even provide mahjong tables that can be used for other card games. Bring your own mahjong sets or cards, that's all. You can't habitually rent chalets anyway.
There was once, after Sec. 4, awaiting O Level results, we rented a Pasir Ris chalet and played semi-strip mahjong. Two girls versus two guys (one of them was yours truly). Regular money rules for one to five doubles (those days 10c-20c with $6.40 limit per hand). Cross five doubles limit or in a pay-all throw, the tile thrower for gamer had to strip a piece of clothing, self-drawn across five doubles, all other three had to.
Guys limited to strip till only underwear left, girls limited to strip to bra and panties, first to reach limit and game over. It wasn't easy to cross five double limit so many times of course. We played from about 10 p.m. to 8 a.m. to get to one stripped to the limit. The unlucky one was a girl.
Guys limited to strip till only underwear left, girls limited to strip to bra and panties, first to reach limit and game over. It wasn't easy to cross five double limit so many times of course. We played from about 10 p.m. to 8 a.m. to get to one stripped to the limit. The unlucky one was a girl.
Why limit the girls to strip to bra and panties?
Which means that he would have to strip off his wet underpants, which was always his ultimate objective.that was probably enough for Ramseth to wet his pants..
Since this chap prefers to avoid the issue by resorting to ad hominem attacks via http://www.singsupplies.com/showpost.php? thought I will explain the intervention mechanisms.
Policies are generally drawn not by lawyers but involves various stakeholders. Some part of a policy may form the framework for legislation to be drawn and this is done by legal draftsmen in AG chambers.
Both the Common Gaming House Act and the Women's Charter were not inherited from the British unlike Penal Code, CPC etc. It was drawn to reflect our society.
The fundamental point to remember is that gambling and prostitution per se are not offences or illegal. It is where and how the these activities occur and done that the law mazy have to kick in.
For CGH, Section 2 provides the power to the minister to prescribe how the activity is to be controlled. This then allows him to specify why certain game of chance or games with a degree of chance are not allowed in certain settings. The clan can play certain games and Golden Dragon has identified them while others are forbidden. Notice nowhere in the act does the actual games such poker, mahjong etc are mentioned accept for lottery. Besides Gazetting, there are also process and procedures that have to be followed. The law also has second set of control in identifying a rank in this case an ASP. Quiet unusual for such a ranking person while most acts give powers to Sgt and above.
In the case of Women's Charter and Part XI in partcular, the intervention mechanism is that all cases in this part must have DPP sanction or approval or Director or Social Welfare before laying charges. PArt XI covers organised prostitution.
No govt, no parliament, and no self respecting and qualified legal person is going to be put things like " no more than 2 tables" " a prostitute is someone wearing heavy make-up and ultra short skirt" etc in any form of legislation. These are too many social and culural issuse to consider and leeway and avenue is provided to the Govt of the day to make sense.
In essence, if the gambling and prostitution is organised, involves a group or open to the public and the organiser is conducting and treating it as money making business, it will have to get approval, permits, clearence. Casino, clans and even social clubs make money to pay for their other activities but these have been cleared or approved.
So if you want to gamble with family and friends in the sancity of your home without turning it into a business, you should not have to worry. The same with visiting your local prostitute. She however may be in trouble if she is in the wrong location or causing a nuisance.
Hope this helps.
Policies are generally drawn not by lawyers but involves various stakeholders. Some part of a policy may form the framework for legislation to be drawn and this is done by legal draftsmen in AG chambers.
Both the Common Gaming House Act and the Women's Charter were not inherited from the British unlike Penal Code, CPC etc. It was drawn to reflect our society.
The fundamental point to remember is that gambling and prostitution per se are not offences or illegal. It is where and how the these activities occur and done that the law mazy have to kick in.
For CGH, Section 2 provides the power to the minister to prescribe how the activity is to be controlled. This then allows him to specify why certain game of chance or games with a degree of chance are not allowed in certain settings. The clan can play certain games and Golden Dragon has identified them while others are forbidden. Notice nowhere in the act does the actual games such poker, mahjong etc are mentioned accept for lottery. Besides Gazetting, there are also process and procedures that have to be followed. The law also has second set of control in identifying a rank in this case an ASP. Quiet unusual for such a ranking person while most acts give powers to Sgt and above.
In the case of Women's Charter and Part XI in partcular, the intervention mechanism is that all cases in this part must have DPP sanction or approval or Director or Social Welfare before laying charges. PArt XI covers organised prostitution.
No govt, no parliament, and no self respecting and qualified legal person is going to be put things like " no more than 2 tables" " a prostitute is someone wearing heavy make-up and ultra short skirt" etc in any form of legislation. These are too many social and culural issuse to consider and leeway and avenue is provided to the Govt of the day to make sense.
In essence, if the gambling and prostitution is organised, involves a group or open to the public and the organiser is conducting and treating it as money making business, it will have to get approval, permits, clearence. Casino, clans and even social clubs make money to pay for their other activities but these have been cleared or approved.
So if you want to gamble with family and friends in the sancity of your home without turning it into a business, you should not have to worry. The same with visiting your local prostitute. She however may be in trouble if she is in the wrong location or causing a nuisance.
Hope this helps.
This actually started out as a simple thing. Thread starter asked if it is an offence to play poker at home for money.
In your answer at message #65, you correctly stated that it is not an offence, but added that "the max is 2 tables".
I took objection to this addition and explained that the number of tables involved do not affect the legality or otherwise of the activity.
Then you exploded and started this exposition on Women's Charter, prostitution, "intervention mechanisms" etc. All of which is completely irrelevant to the issue at hand.
Let's make it simple again. I will put an amended version of TS's question to you :
Is it illegal to have 3 tables of people play poker (involving money) at home?
You only have to answer "yes" or "no".
In your answer at message #65, you correctly stated that it is not an offence, but added that "the max is 2 tables".
I took objection to this addition and explained that the number of tables involved do not affect the legality or otherwise of the activity.
Then you exploded and started this exposition on Women's Charter, prostitution, "intervention mechanisms" etc. All of which is completely irrelevant to the issue at hand.
Let's make it simple again. I will put an amended version of TS's question to you :
Is it illegal to have 3 tables of people play poker (involving money) at home?
You only have to answer "yes" or "no".
My name is Rajakumar - Senior Asst Commissioner Rajakumar and I am bloody 2lan I did not become CP.
Oooops. Chairman is Richard Magnus.
Similar threads
