|
 ©Today Online,
Singapore (Used by permission)
by Mark Goh
AS SINGAPORE prepares to welcome casinos in the upcoming integrated resorts, a
recent court case in the United Kingdom involving a casino’s attempt to recover
a big debt from one of its high-rollers may hold some relevance.
As reported by Today on Sept 5, Aspinalls, a casino in the Mayfair area, failed
to recover a 2-million-pound debt from one of its patrons, Mr Fouad al-Zayat, a
high-roller.
The UK High Court dismissed the casino’s claim because it found that when the
casino delayed in recovering the debt, that amounted to the casino giving him
credit, which is illegal under the UK Gaming Act.
Similarly, in Singapore, Section 108 of the Casino Control Act, Chapter 33A ,
will also render such local contracts to lend money by local casinos illegal, if
no credit balance is maintained. The Act came into force only this year.
However, back in 1997, such contracts were not illegal here.
In the case of Las Vegas Hilton vs Sunny Khoo Teck Hock, Justice Chao
Hick Tin ruled that in Singapore, gaming was not illegal per se; neither was
borrowing or lending money for gaming immoral or unlawful.
In ruling thus, the Singapore High Court allowed the Las Vegas casino to recover
its US$1-million-loan fromMr Khoo.
A point which came to light in that case was that such contracts were not
illegal in Nevada, United States.
The High Court accepted that such lending contracts were legal in Nevada, thus
making the Nevada Lending Contract enforceable here.
Fast forward to 2008, Section 108 of the Casino Control Act does not make such
lending contracts illegal.
In moving the Casino Control Bill in Parliament, Home Affairs Minister Wong Kan
Seng noted: “Problem gamblers have a tendency to gamble beyond what they can
afford. As a safeguard, clause 106 of the Bill shall require casino operators to
provide information about games to patrons as well as a loss limit system that
casino patrons may choose to use.”
“This will give patrons an option to commit upfront to a loss amount that they
can afford in their gaming.”
Mr Wong added: “Clause 108 of the Bill shall prohibit casino and junket
operators from extending credit to Singapore citizens and permanent residents,
unless they maintain a credit balance of at least $100,000 with the casino
operator at the start of their gaming which would qualify them as premium
players.”
The point of interest here is that the precedent set by the Khoo Teck Hock case
remains valid and Section 108 of the Act may not have made it inapplicable.
Presumably, a foreign casino which enters into a foreign lending contract with a
permanent resident or Singapore citizen may still be able to recover the debt
owed under a legal foreign loan contract through the Singapore Courts.
If our intent is to stop and discourage such casino lending contracts, then the
law should also not recognise such foreign lending contracts with foreign
casinos. After all, what is good for the goose must necessarily be good for the
gander.
At the present, it appears that while a Singapore court will not enforce a local
lending contract by a local casino which has not complied with Section 108 of
the Act, the same court may enforce a legal foreign lending contract by a
foreign casino against a Permanent Resident or Singapore citizen.
If that were to be the case, one wonders what is the policy reasoning behind
making such a distinction? Shouldn’t it be the case that all such lending
contracts by casinos, wherever they may be in the world, are illegal in
Singapore?
If we apply the same standards across the board, then the Courts in Singapore
can adopt a single approach instead of the present dichotomy of approaches.
The writer is a practising lawyer.
 |
News 
Subscribe to this comment's feed
Circular No 297/2008
