• 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.

Serious "Bookmaker" under The Betting Act re: "Baccarat Insurance"

Charlie99

Alfrescian (Inf)
Asset
http://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/courts-crime/lawyers-want-apex-court-to-clarify-term-bookmaker


Lawyers for a man jailed 10 months for accepting "insurance" wagers from punters playing baccarat in casinos are pushing for the test case to be referred to the Court of Appeal.

They want the law clarified in the public interest on whether the term "bookmaker" under the Betting Act applies to persons who provide "baccarat" insurance to casino patrons.

The lawyers had argued in a High Court appeal last month that bets taken by a bookmaker under the Act are limited to horse races or sporting events and do not cover games like baccarat in casinos.

But the High Court judge dismissed the appeal, ruling that the Act could cover a wide range of instances, including outcomes of government elections.

With the High Court dismissal of the criminal case, which was first heard in the State Courts, there would be no room for further appeal except to get permission to file a criminal reference, which is reserved for cases hinging on questions of law of public interest.

The case involves businessman Peh Hai Yam, 53, who had been convicted last year on nine counts of conspiring with various accomplices to provide baccarat "insurance" to casino patrons at Resorts World Sentosa.

In baccarat with insurance, users in certain situations, at some point after the cards have been dealt, may bet on "player insurance" or "banker insurance".

The insurance is meant to guard against the user losing all of the betting money placed in the game proper. The payout from the insurance bet cannot exceed the original bet placed on "player" or "banker".

Peh's wife, Madam Tan Saw Eng, had admitted last year that she made about $50,000 through insurance bets with baccarat players.

Peh and an accomplice hatched the move in 2010 to jointly receive baccarat insurance bets from casino patrons, offering the same odds as Resorts World Sentosa casino. Their enterprise grew, but in November 2011, Peh and other accomplices including his wife were snagged by police.

He was sentenced by District Judge Mathew Joseph in December 2015 to five months' jail on each of the nine charges, with two of the jail terms to run consecutively. He was also fined $200,000.

Peh's lawyers, led by Mr Ong Ying Ping, in arguing his appeal against conviction in the High Court, said Parliament's intention behind the Act was solely to regulate betting on horses and sporting events.

Deputy Public Prosecutor Hon Yi countered there was no evidence that Parliament had intended such a restrictive approach and the relevant term in the Act applied to bets or wagers in any event.

Justice See Kee Oon, in judgment grounds released last month, held among other things that the terms "horse race" and "sporting event" were absent when Parliament defined "bookmaker" in Section 2(1) of the Act, showing there was no intent to limit it to horse races and sporting events.

The judge also cited "other potential and readily-identifiable situations" in which a person may have acted as a bookmaker and breached Section 5(3)(a) of the Act by receiving bets or wagers not related to horse races or sporting events.

"For example, bookmakers may conceivably receive or negotiate bets placed on the outcomes of government elections, beauty pageants, talent contests (for example, music or dance competitions), or entertainment award ceremonies such as the Academy, Emmy or Grammy awards," said Justice See. These are obviously not horse races or sporting events and "bets or wagers received or negotiated in relation to these outcomes by bookmakers would fall foul of the Betting Act", said the judge.

The case is set to be heard by the top court in September.

Any comments?
 

Charlie99

Alfrescian (Inf)
Asset
This topic is of public interest in SG because there are two casinos in SG,
whereas when the Betting Act was enacted, no one contemplated any casino in SG.
 

scroobal

Alfrescian
Loyal
Its an interesting case. Its sounds to me that RWS got the Police to do their work. If they were bookmakers in the normal sense of the word, their clients would not be betting with RWS but with them. If RWS felt that they were riding on the business they should have barred them.

I am confident that Court of Appeal would not go beyond the legislation. Its a slippery slope when the prosecution start to broadly interpret existing laws to address things that were not thought of in the first place.
 

GoldenDragon

Alfrescian (Inf)
Asset
More at stake here. I recall many others were convicted for similar MO at RWS years ago. One veg seller too.

If appeal is allowed, what is next? Govt to refund those who paid their fine? How to explain to those who didn't pay their fines and incarcerated for a longer period? That our highly regarded AGC misread the pertinent law?

Looks like a time bomb for people involved - police, AGC, state court and high court.

Any Lawyers here to assist?
 

GoldenDragon

Alfrescian (Inf)
Asset
Its an interesting case. Its sounds to me that RWS got the Police to do their work. If they were bookmakers in the normal sense of the word, their clients would not be betting with RWS but with them. If RWS felt that they were riding on the business they should have barred them.

I am confident that Court of Appeal would not go beyond the legislation. Its a slippery slope when the prosecution start to broadly interpret existing laws to address things that were not thought of in the first place.

May not be the case whereby RWS initiated work for CCIB/CID. No reason to use their dicks knock their own heads.

Why? Because these insurers provide a service to those wanting to purchase insurance. Something that RWS may not provide.

Why buy from these alleged bookies when RWS offers the same? And no guarantee private insurers will pay up compared to RWS.

I won't go into the reason why coz no wish for prosecution and CA to have extra info against the accused. Btw, for the record, I have no links to the accused.

Please note that if RWS wants to stop these baccarat insurance bets aka side bets, it can easily be done. Don't allow time for buyer and seller to negotiate insurance bet amount.

Expedite the process and most of these private insurance transactions won't succeed. Unless gambler and alleged bookie agreed beforehand a 'system' to buy and sell. Not easy though.

I am aware quite a number of these insurers were earlier banned in RWS and MBS when casino Operators suspected them of their involvement in this activity. But, they were not banned from the casino. They were banned only from the high-end side of the casino and could still bet in the mass area.
 

GoldenDragon

Alfrescian (Inf)
Asset
Its an interesting case. Its sounds to me that RWS got the Police to do their work. If they were bookmakers in the normal sense of the word, their clients would not be betting with RWS but with them. If RWS felt that they were riding on the business they should have barred them.

I am confident that Court of Appeal would not go beyond the legislation. Its a slippery slope when the prosecution start to broadly interpret existing laws to address things that were not thought of in the first place.

Can't PM u. Mailbox is full.
 

GoldenDragon

Alfrescian (Inf)
Asset
Read both the Betting Act and the Common Gaming Houses Act and these are my observations:

1) BA deals with horse racing and sporting event bets. Also, events whereby skills and chance are involved - beauty contests, political contests

2) CGHA, enacted after BA, merely covers activities/events whereby only chance is involved - lotteries, card games and jackpot machines

3) If See Kee Onn, Matthew Joseph and AGC were right in their interpretation that 'event' covers everything under the sun and moon, why was there a need to have the CGHA after the BA? Why the need to include 'sporting event' in the BA 24-25 yrs after the BA was first enacted? Why the need to have the Remote Gaming Act enacted recently when 'event' is good enough to capture online betting?

4) in parliamentary debates leading to the BA, it was everything related to mini-turf clubs, common betting houses, betting information Centres, social ills related to such activities etc.

5) Parliament never intended the BA to capture all bet types. Bookmakers accept bets but not everyone accepting bets is a bookmaker. Can a croupier in a gambling den, who accepts bets, be a bookmaker? Can a 4D/Toto operator or runner be a bookie? Never.
 

GoldenDragon

Alfrescian (Inf)
Asset
Sir, please also research this peh hai yam and wife tan saw eng. Kam sia .

I am not interested in the individuals. Only keen to know if law was misinterpreted right from the start. Or their stance (prosecution) was belatedly manufactured after case went for trial. I understand no other accused claimed trial.
 

GoldenDragon

Alfrescian (Inf)
Asset
Nov 2011 arrested. Dec 2015 convicted. Holy shit! 49 months to end this case? Appears to me to be very straight-forward.

Strategy to decimate an accused financially and mentally? I recall reading somewhere that CHC's case was reported as one of the longest in criminal history but I suspect this case is the longer of the two.

Maybe someone can help explain and account for the need to drag 49 months.
Or maybe it took more than 150 days in court time over this 49 months? Something is seriously wrong in our system.
 
Top