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

[shittypore]

Justice system also has to consider allowing Lawyers to get rich, more u pay more time u get to drag on ur case. No pay to lawyer straight go to jail.

 

[GoldenDragon]

Justice system also has to consider allowing Lawyers to get rich, more u pay more time u get to drag on ur case. No pay to lawyer straight go to jail.

Just wondering who he engaged previously. Must have been conned by his lawyer(s) big time. Always the case with criminal Lawyers.

Was told current one played no role in the State Courts. Merely the appeal against conviction in the High Court before See Kee Onn, who was only a JC then.

 

[CoffeeAhSoh]

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.

if you are from the CID it will be a strsight forward case. its a waste of resources. this case will be overruled. thats the hard truths. sorry to disappoint anyone here. rws radar is very powerful. dont under estimate it. just go check who is on its board of directors.

 

[GoldenDragon]

if you are from the CID it will be a strsight forward case. its a waste of resources. this case will be overruled. thats the hard truths. sorry to disappoint anyone here. rws radar is very powerful. dont under estimate it. just go check who is on its board of directors.

If you are familiar with casino operations, no operator gets the police to arrest baccarat insurers in their premises.

S'pore is the first. But we aren't the first to have casinos. And baccarat insurance takes place in almost all casinos, including those in cruise ships.

Laws may vary but quite certainly it can't be the case that in other jurisdictions, Operators and authorities are sleeping or closing both eyes.

Bear in mind that those earlier issued with PNG were not banned from the casino but only in the VVIP area. They were still welcome in the mass area.

If what you said is true, surely they must be banned in all areas of the casino.

While it is true that casino Operators 'lose' some money coz of these private baccarat insurers, they are more than happy to enter into a 'peaceful coexistence' relationship with this category of gamblers.

They not only enter into side bets with patrons (baccarat insurance). They are gamblers too.

There can only be one reason why this fiasco took place and it has nothing to do with RWS.

 

[KNNBPCB]

If you are familiar with casino operations, no operator gets the police to arrest baccarat insurers in their premises.

S'pore is the first. But we aren't the first to have casinos. And baccarat insurance takes place in almost all casinos, including those in cruise ships.

Laws may vary but quite certainly it can't be the case that in other jurisdictions, Operators and authorities are sleeping or closing both eyes.

Bear in mind that those earlier issued with PNG were not banned from the casino but only in the VVIP area. They were still welcome in the mass area.

If what you said is true, surely they must be banned in all areas of the casino.

While it is true that casino Operators 'lose' some money coz of these private baccarat insurers, they are more than happy to enter into a 'peaceful coexistence' relationship with this category of gamblers.

They not only enter into side bets with patrons (baccarat insurance). They are gamblers too.

There can only be one reason why this fiasco took place and it has nothing to do with RWS.

This is pretty much stating the obvious, but thanks for the info anyway. :p

 

[GoldenDragon]

This is pretty much stating the obvious, but thanks for the info anyway. :p

CoffeeAhSoh viewed it from a different perspective. And I respectfully disagree.
Looking forward to enlightenment in Sept.

 

[KNNBPCB]

CoffeeAhSoh viewed it from a different perspective. And I respectfully disagree.
Looking forward to enlightenment in Sept.

Let's wait patiently for Sept. :p

 

[CoffeeAhSoh]

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.

he already served the 10 months jail time.


Conclusion

68 For the reasons above, I find that there is clearly no merit in the appellant’s submissions. I am satisfied that the District Judge was correct in finding the appellant guilty under s 5(3)(a) of the Betting Act on nine charges of engaging in a conspiracy to act as a bookmaker by providing Baccarat insurance to persons gambling at the RWS Casino. There is no appeal against the sentence. I therefore dismiss the appeal against conviction and affirm the District Judge's findings and conclusions.





Peh Hai Yam v Public Prosecutor [2017] SGHC 69

Case Number : Magistrate's Appeal No 162 of 2015/01

Decision Date : 05 April 2017

Tribunal/Court : High Court

Coram : See Kee Oon J

Counsel Name(s) : Ong Ying Ping, Lim Seng Siew and Chew Zijie (Ong Ying Ping Esq) for the appellant; Hon Yi (Attorney-General's Chambers) for the respondent.

Parties :

Criminal Law – Statutory Offences – Betting Act


5 April 2017

Judgment reserved.

See Kee Oon J:

Introduction

1 The appellant, Peh Hai Yam, was convicted after trial before a District Judge on nine counts under s 5(3)(a) of the Betting Act (Cap 21, 2011 Rev Ed) read with s 109 of the Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed) for conspiring with various accomplices to provide Baccarat "insurance” to patrons of the casino at Resorts World Sentosa ("RWS Casino”). The rules of Baccarat and Baccarat with Insurance are summarised at [16] of the District Judge’s Grounds of Decision which is reported as Public Prosecutor v Peh Hai Yam [2016] SGMC 30 ("GD”):

Baccarat was one of the games offered at RWS Casino. Players who join the Baccarat tables play against the House (ie, the casino operator) by placing their bets on the designated betting areas on the table. According to the RWS, Baccarat with Insurance game rules ("the Rules”) (exhibits P11 and P12), in certain situations after the first four cards have been dealt, players who have bet on either "Player” or "Banker” may, additionally, place an insurance bet by betting on "Player Insurance” or "Banker Insurance”, provided that the payout from the insurance bet does not exceed the value of the original bet placed on "Player” or "Banker”.

2 The District Judge sentenced the appellant to five months’ imprisonment and a fine of $25,000 for each of the first eight charges, and to five months’ imprisonment for the ninth charge. He ordered the imprisonment terms in respect of two charges to run consecutively, resulting in the total sentence of 10 months’ imprisonment and $200,000 fine (in default eight months’ imprisonment).[note: 1]

3 The appellant is not appealing against the District Judge’s factual findings or the sentence imposed, but only against his conviction. The appeal centres on a point of law. The appellant argues that the District Judge erred in finding that the term "bookmaker”, as used in s 5(3)(a) of the Betting Act, applies to persons who provide Baccarat "insurance” to casino patrons. The respondent submits that the District Judge correctly interpreted the term "bookmaker” in accordance with both the plain and purposive reading of the relevant provisions of the Betting Act.
Background facts

4 The undisputed facts and findings of the District Judge are set out in [13] to [65] of the GD. As the appellant is not challenging the District Judge’s factual findings, I will briefly set out only those background facts that are material to the present appeal.

5 Sometime in 2010, the appellant and one Teo Chua Kuang (also known as "Meng Tee”) agreed to jointly receive Baccarat "insurance” bets from casino patrons at the RWS Casino. They offered the same odds as the RWS Casino. The appellant and Meng Tee agreed to split the winnings and losses, with Meng Tee taking a 30% share and the appellant taking a larger 70% share, as he was providing the funds to back the bets. This enterprise of offering Baccarat "insurance” bets grew considerably to the extent that Meng Tee had to hire runners to help solicit and receive Baccarat "insurance” bets from casino patrons.

6 Sometime in September 2010, the appellant recruited one Yong Tian Choy ("Yong”) to be his runner at the Maxims and Maxims Platinum Clubs at the RWS Casino. The appellant gave gaming chips to Yong and instructed him to approach casino patrons at the Baccarat tables and offer them the option of placing Baccarat "insurance” bets with the appellant instead of the casino.

7 In June 2011, the RWS Casino discovered that the appellant was entering into bets with other casino patrons and prohibited him from entering the Maxims and Maxims Platinum gaming areas. Thereafter, the appellant’s wife, one Tan Saw Eng ("Tan”) took over the running of the Baccarat "insurance” operation in the casino. Tan ensured that the runners had sufficient chips to handle Baccarat "insurance” bets and also provided daily updates of their winnings and losses to various persons, including the appellant. Yong continued to receive the "insurance” bets from casino patrons.

8 On 2 November 2011, the appellant and his accomplices were arrested by Police Officers from the Criminal Investigation Department’s Casino Crime Investigation Branch.

 

[GoldenDragon]

Let's wait patiently for Sept. :p

Yes, under the BoPien Act, no choice but to wait.

Interestingly, upon further research and reading, I found no definition of a bookmaker as someone who solicits and accepts bets on the outcome of card games or 'event.' That was prosecution's only argument, agreed by State and High Courts.

On the contrary, dictionaries define a bookmaker as someone who accepts bets on outcome of horse race and sporting events.

Has to be a contest of skills, endurance, involving machines, animals, humans etc. Which is not the case with baccarat, jackpot or lotteries whereby skills have no role in determining outcome.

 

[KNNBPCB]

Yes, under the BoPien Act, no choice but to wait.

Interestingly, upon further research and reading, I found no definition of a bookmaker as someone who solicits and accepts bets on the outcome of card games or 'event.' That was prosecution's only argument, agreed by State and High Courts.

On the contrary, dictionaries define a bookmaker as someone who accepts bets on outcome of horse race and sporting events.

Has to be a contest of skills, endurance, involving machines, animals, humans etc. Which is not the case with baccarat, jackpot or lotteries whereby skills have no role in determining outcome.

Jackpot and lotteries perhaps, but I would beg to differ that skills have no role in determining the outcome in baccarat.

 

[GoldenDragon]

he already served the 10 months jail time.


Conclusion

68 For the reasons above, I find that there is clearly no merit in the appellant’s submissions. I am satisfied that the District Judge was correct in finding the appellant guilty under s 5(3)(a) of the Betting Act on nine charges of engaging in a conspiracy to act as a bookmaker by providing Baccarat insurance to persons gambling at the RWS Casino. There is no appeal against the sentence. I therefore dismiss the appeal against conviction and affirm the District Judge's findings and conclusions.





Peh Hai Yam v Public Prosecutor [2017] SGHC 69

Case Number : Magistrate's Appeal No 162 of 2015/01

Decision Date : 05 April 2017

Tribunal/Court : High Court

Coram : See Kee Oon J

Counsel Name(s) : Ong Ying Ping, Lim Seng Siew and Chew Zijie (Ong Ying Ping Esq) for the appellant; Hon Yi (Attorney-General's Chambers) for the respondent.

Parties :

Criminal Law – Statutory Offences – Betting Act


5 April 2017

Judgment reserved.

See Kee Oon J:

Introduction

1 The appellant, Peh Hai Yam, was convicted after trial before a District Judge on nine counts under s 5(3)(a) of the Betting Act (Cap 21, 2011 Rev Ed) read with s 109 of the Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed) for conspiring with various accomplices to provide Baccarat "insurance” to patrons of the casino at Resorts World Sentosa ("RWS Casino”). The rules of Baccarat and Baccarat with Insurance are summarised at [16] of the District Judge’s Grounds of Decision which is reported as Public Prosecutor v Peh Hai Yam [2016] SGMC 30 ("GD”):

Baccarat was one of the games offered at RWS Casino. Players who join the Baccarat tables play against the House (ie, the casino operator) by placing their bets on the designated betting areas on the table. According to the RWS, Baccarat with Insurance game rules ("the Rules”) (exhibits P11 and P12), in certain situations after the first four cards have been dealt, players who have bet on either "Player” or "Banker” may, additionally, place an insurance bet by betting on "Player Insurance” or "Banker Insurance”, provided that the payout from the insurance bet does not exceed the value of the original bet placed on "Player” or "Banker”.

2 The District Judge sentenced the appellant to five months’ imprisonment and a fine of $25,000 for each of the first eight charges, and to five months’ imprisonment for the ninth charge. He ordered the imprisonment terms in respect of two charges to run consecutively, resulting in the total sentence of 10 months’ imprisonment and $200,000 fine (in default eight months’ imprisonment).[note: 1]

3 The appellant is not appealing against the District Judge’s factual findings or the sentence imposed, but only against his conviction. The appeal centres on a point of law. The appellant argues that the District Judge erred in finding that the term "bookmaker”, as used in s 5(3)(a) of the Betting Act, applies to persons who provide Baccarat "insurance” to casino patrons. The respondent submits that the District Judge correctly interpreted the term "bookmaker” in accordance with both the plain and purposive reading of the relevant provisions of the Betting Act.
Background facts

4 The undisputed facts and findings of the District Judge are set out in [13] to [65] of the GD. As the appellant is not challenging the District Judge’s factual findings, I will briefly set out only those background facts that are material to the present appeal.

5 Sometime in 2010, the appellant and one Teo Chua Kuang (also known as "Meng Tee”) agreed to jointly receive Baccarat "insurance” bets from casino patrons at the RWS Casino. They offered the same odds as the RWS Casino. The appellant and Meng Tee agreed to split the winnings and losses, with Meng Tee taking a 30% share and the appellant taking a larger 70% share, as he was providing the funds to back the bets. This enterprise of offering Baccarat "insurance” bets grew considerably to the extent that Meng Tee had to hire runners to help solicit and receive Baccarat "insurance” bets from casino patrons.

6 Sometime in September 2010, the appellant recruited one Yong Tian Choy ("Yong”) to be his runner at the Maxims and Maxims Platinum Clubs at the RWS Casino. The appellant gave gaming chips to Yong and instructed him to approach casino patrons at the Baccarat tables and offer them the option of placing Baccarat "insurance” bets with the appellant instead of the casino.

7 In June 2011, the RWS Casino discovered that the appellant was entering into bets with other casino patrons and prohibited him from entering the Maxims and Maxims Platinum gaming areas. Thereafter, the appellant’s wife, one Tan Saw Eng ("Tan”) took over the running of the Baccarat "insurance” operation in the casino. Tan ensured that the runners had sufficient chips to handle Baccarat "insurance” bets and also provided daily updates of their winnings and losses to various persons, including the appellant. Yong continued to receive the "insurance” bets from casino patrons.

8 On 2 November 2011, the appellant and his accomplices were arrested by Police Officers from the Criminal Investigation Department’s Casino Crime Investigation Branch.

Tqvm for surfacing this document.

I think there's no dispute over whether he was involved in the scheme. Case, I am certain was proven beyond reasonable doubt. Am curious what his earlier lawyer(s) told him.

Fight on the admissibility of statements? That's foolish. I read somewhere his accomplice(s) were dealt with earlier and he/they pleaded guilty.

The only thing left for him is to fight on whether the said activity qualifies as a bookmaking offence? The more I read and research, the more I think it doesn't.
But of course I am not an authority on the law. I only 'O' level Ah Pek.

 

[CoffeeAhSoh]

U r welcome. Mysterious case indeed any they got deep pockets .

lets watch the appeal unfold .

 

[GoldenDragon]

U r welcome. Mysterious case indeed any they got deep pockets .

lets watch the appeal unfold .

This is the last stop. CA may consider appointing an amicus curiae to offer his/her opinion on this matter of public interest. Good and fair to listen to a neutral party.

 

[GoldenDragon]

Eureka!

1) An important point for the CA to note.
When a bookmaker wins a specific bet, his punter loses. If his punter wins, he loses.

2) This applies to gambling den Operators as well as lottery collectors. They cannot be enjoying a Win-win or lose-lose betting relationship with their clients. It has to be Win-lose or lose-win.

3) In the case of baccarat insurance, the alleged bookmaker buys into his client's earlier bet only if latter is agreeable. Latter can choose not to sell a part of his bet. Punter decides if side bet goes through.

4) 2 observations from para 3:
a) for all bets to materialise, bookies must have the final say. For instance, Pinky wants to place a 10k bet that Arsenal will beat Chelsea during FA Cup. That doesn't mean it's done. Bookie may not accept bet coz Pinky is a 'smelly leg' or worse, a 'Hiong Kah.' Bookie may not accept or counter offer that Pinky bet a max 100 for the game. Whoever has the final say must be the bookie, right? That being the case, AGC and both courts got it all wrong!

b) having allowed the alleged bookie a share of his bet, both can only hope to win the bet on table. If win, both win. If lose, both lose. The alleged bookie loses more than his bet amount coz 1 will pay 2,3 or 4 times his bet amount.

5) no bookmaker makes his money on the outcome of the event. Either way, he makes coz of commission. In the case of baccarat insurance, there's no comms involved. The alleged bookie must hope his punter wins.

More Eureka moments coming ......

 

[scroobal]

Great points. I don't see how this can be considered bookmaking. I am actually more confident with the CA on this. Again to me RWS making the Police do their work. Worst case is operating a business without and not declaring taxable income.

Eureka!

1) An important point for the CA to note.
When a bookmaker wins a specific bet, his punter loses. If his punter wins, he loses.

2) This applies to gambling den Operators as well as lottery collectors. They cannot be enjoying a Win-win or lose-lose betting relationship with their clients. It has to be Win-lose or lose-win.

3) In the case of baccarat insurance, the alleged bookmaker buys into his client's earlier bet only if latter is agreeable. Latter can choose not to sell a part of his bet. Punter decides if side bet goes through.

4) 2 observations from para 3:
a) for all bets to materialise, bookies must have the final say. For instance, Pinky wants to place a 10k bet that Arsenal will beat Chelsea during FA Cup. That doesn't mean it's done. Bookie may not accept bet coz Pinky is a 'smelly leg' or worse, a 'Hiong Kah.' Bookie may not accept or counter offer that Pinky bet a max 100 for the game. Whoever has the final say must be the bookie, right? That being the case, AGC and both courts got it all wrong!

b) having allowed the alleged bookie a share of his bet, both can only hope to win the bet on table. If win, both win. If lose, both lose. The alleged bookie loses more than his bet amount coz 1 will pay 2,3 or 4 times his bet amount.

5) no bookmaker makes his money on the outcome of the event. Either way, he makes coz of commission. In the case of baccarat insurance, there's no comms involved. The alleged bookie must hope his punter wins.

More Eureka moments coming ......

 

[GoldenDragon]

Great points. I don't see how this can be considered bookmaking. I am actually more confident with the CA on this. .

Applying the eujesdem generis rule may be useful to curb the wild imagination of some people. When desperate, people act and think in strange ways.

Am pretty sure Parliament had no intend to include receiving bets on card games as a bookmaking offence. Or, that activity be construed as an event.

The act of receiving bets in card games in an illegal den is covered under the CGHA and yet, the word 'bookmaking' is never mentioned, not even once, in the CGHA. 'Assisting in the running of a CGH' is the offence, even if one is the croupier. Not bookmaking.

Also, though not defined in the BA, an event is far more likely to refer to a beauty contest, a political election, FI, MMA, SEA games, Commonwealth games et cetera.

If a card game inside a casino can be construed as an event, what are things that can't be events? Almost all our daily activities can be construed as an event, right?

Going to the toilet, pulling pants down to shit, visiting a prostitute, even asking for a particular sex act, driving one's car, listening to the radio, buying durians, consuming them, ordering a cup of Kopi, drinking the Kopi, leaving the kpt ........

 

[GoldenDragon]

Eureka!

CA can easily differentiate between bookmaking and non-bookmaking Offences . I offer my assistance gratis, being a model citizen.

For all bookmaking offences, the bets can be placed in advance. You need not wait for the 'event' to take place then place bet. You can even watch some of these activities 'live.' The odds also fluctuate all the time.

Compare that to a baccarat game. For that matter, all Offences under the CGHA. Can one place an advance bet on a baccarat game? Can one watch these baccarat games/events 'live' over tv? For sure, the odds/payout remains the same throughout, unlike the real bookmaking activities. Only in lotteries can one place a bet in advance.

 

[CoffeeAhSoh]

This is the last stop. CA may consider appointing an amicus curiae to offer his/her opinion on this matter of public interest. Good and fair to listen to a neutral party.

If this appeal succeed , then i worry. Because then all Insurance Companies, life and general , are also " Bookmakers".

 

[GoldenDragon]

If this appeal succeed , then i worry. Because then all Insurance Companies, life and general , are also " Bookmakers".

Those are legit business entities. Registered and paying taxes. Clients include MIW.

 

[GoldenDragon]

U r welcome. Mysterious case indeed any they got deep pockets .

lets watch the appeal unfold .

Was told that in addition to close to 400k fine for the couple, which Tan Saw Eng paid (180k), chips and cash seized in 2011 during raid came to approx 400k.

If appeal fails, cash and chips will be forfeited to State. So, it's a fight of 800k, jail terms excluded.

As neutrals, we are merely looking at whether AGC, in 'public interest,' misinterpreted the BA. Was it an honest mistake? Or were they just trying their luck knowing the BA does not cover card games.

The architects of the BA failed miserably. When one only reads the definition of a 'bookmaker,' it covers ALL forms of betting.

After reading the entire BA and parliamentary debates leading to its enactment, there is no doubt they were referring only to activities that requires mixed skills and chance. Not chance alone.

Reading the CGHA, enacted 2 yrs after the BA completes the picture. All games of chance are captured in the CGHA.

When online gaming proliferated, the govt responded. Late of course. After a decade, they introduced the Remote Gaming Act to tackle online gaming.