• Subscribe
  • Magazines
  • About
  • Contact
  • Advertise
Sunday 1 June 2025
  • zh-hant 中文
  • ja 日本語
  • en English
IAG
Advertisement
  • Newsfeed
  • Mag Articles
  • Video
  • Opinion
  • Tags
  • Regional
    • Africa
    • Australia
    • Cambodia
    • China
    • CNMI
    • Europe
    • Hong Kong
    • India
    • Japan
    • Laos
    • Latin America
    • Malaysia
    • Macau
    • Nepal
    • New Zealand
    • North America
    • North Korea
    • Philippines
    • Russia
    • Singapore
    • South Korea
    • Sri Lanka
    • Thailand
    • UAE
    • Vietnam
  • Events
  • Contributors
  • SUBSCRIBE FREE
  • 中文
  • 日本語
No Result
View All Result
IAG
  • Newsfeed
  • Mag Articles
  • Video
  • Opinion
  • Tags
  • Regional
    • Africa
    • Australia
    • Cambodia
    • China
    • CNMI
    • Europe
    • Hong Kong
    • India
    • Japan
    • Laos
    • Latin America
    • Malaysia
    • Macau
    • Nepal
    • New Zealand
    • North America
    • North Korea
    • Philippines
    • Russia
    • Singapore
    • South Korea
    • Sri Lanka
    • Thailand
    • UAE
    • Vietnam
  • Events
  • Contributors
  • SUBSCRIBE FREE
  • 中文
  • 日本語
No Result
View All Result
IAG
No Result
View All Result

In defense of Macau’s junket licensing regime

David Green by David Green
Thu 7 May 2020 at 14:37
In defense of Macau’s junket licensing regime
51
SHARES
1.3k
VIEWS
Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Former gaming regulator David Green explains why Macau’s regulatory model for the VIP Promotion, or “junket”, industry continues to be in the best interests of both the Macau SAR and the People’s Republic of China.

Perhaps enforced isolation is imbuing me with a distorted sense of time compression, but it seems some gaming industry experts continue to bang on in any forum that will hear them about the embedded weaknesses of Macau’s approach to the regulation of junket operations.

Their normative pronouncements about what constitutes good-practice regulation pay little to no regard whatsoever to history, context or relevant public interest. Rather, they would seem to promote the idea that there is a gold standard which implies contextual irrelevance, and that should be pursued irrespective of host jurisdictions’ public interest. Intellectual and cultural imperialism is alive and well. It shouldn’t be.

To understand why Macau’s regulatory regime for junkets has evolved as it has, it is necessary to go back to the Portuguese colonial era. Although Portuguese merchants had settled Macau in the mid-16th century, it was not until 1979 that Portugal established formal diplomatic relations with the PRC.

Portugal had relinquished control of its other colonies, such as Angola and Mozambique, after the military coup of April 1974, known as the Carnation Revolution. At the time, the PRC declined to take over the administration of Macau, perhaps because it was itself in the midst of the Cultural Revolution.

Macau’s monopoly operator STDM contributed 47% of all government revenue in 1999.

It was not until December 1999 that the handback was completed, some 12 years after the Sino-Portuguese declaration regarding the return of Macau to Chinese administration had been signed.

Upon its establishment, the administration of the inaugural Chief Executive, Edmund Ho Hau Wah, found itself on the proverbial horns of a dilemma. First, Macau’s traditional secondary industries of textiles and footwear, boat building, fishing and fireworks were all in decline. Secondly, Articles 104 and 105 of the Basic Law of Macau conferred financial independence on the SAR. This cut two ways; the PRC could not levy taxes or share in the SAR’s revenue streams, but equally, though implicitly, there was no obligation placed upon the PRC to shore up the finances of the nascent administration. Article 105 specifically required the SAR to adopt policies which would see revenues match or exceed public expenditure.

On the plus side of the ledger was Macau’s gaming industry. In 1999, tax on the gross gaming revenue of the monopoly operator, STDM, contributed 47% of all government revenue. STDM employed directly more than 10,000 people, or about 5% of the workforce at the time. This number does not include junket operators’ staff and agents, who were generating more than 60% of STDM’s revenue through their VIP operations. It is likely they were far more numerous than the direct employees of STDM.

In a report written for the US Congress in August 1999, the Congressional Research Service presciently observed that, “In dealing with Macau after December 20, 1999, China will face the dilemma of how to preserve the profitability of the gambling industry, in order to retain this significant source of revenue.”

The PRC was unlikely to provide a mechanism for the lawful recovery of gaming debts incurred by its residents, given the propensity for such recourse to contribute to social disharmony. Moreover, were it to do so, it would potentially make junket operators, their employees and agents redundant.

Suncity Group has emerged as Macau’s dominant VIP leader

The perils associated with that course were demonstrated during the open warfare that had broken out in 1997 between the 14K and Sui Fong triads over control of VIP rooms in STDM’s casinos. Tourist arrivals, the source of much of the economy’s revenue, fell almost 20% between 1996 and 1998. It was in the interests of both the PRC and the Ho administration, and the people of Macau, that the potential of the gaming industry to be a driver of growth be stimulated.

Arthur Andersen was appointed in August 2000 to advise the SAR government on how to proceed with liberalization of the industry. The most obvious point to be made at the outset was that Macau needed to adopt a regulatory regime for the industry which would meet at least the minimum expectations and requirements of likely bidders for new concessions. The concession system itself was foreign to most bidders.

In October 2001, the omnibus gaming law, 16/2001, was adopted, and was closely followed by Regulation 6/2002, which provided for oversight of junket operators and their licensing. The regulation did not come into force until 2004; the delay was intended to give junkets the opportunity to organize themselves to be compliant.

In particular, licensing was dependent upon a junket either being a natural person, or exclusively owned by natural persons. This was intended to facilitate transparency, and to prevent the public flotation of shares in incorporated junkets.

Licensing of junkets, which takes account of their “suitability” to conduct the business, is merely a threshold requirement for a junket to do business with a Macau gaming concessionaire. Once licensed, a junket must enter into a written contract with each concessionaire with which it plans to work. These contracts have evolved over time as the responsibilities imposed upon junkets under other legislation have increased, such as AML reporting and credit law.

 

Macau’s inaugural Chief Executive, Edmund Ho Hau Wah.

Moreover, the obligations imposed on concessionaires have also increased, particularly in complying with mandated Minimum Internal Control Requirements. By licensing a junket operator, the regulator is not warranting that the operator is fit for purpose; that is a matter for each concessionaire to determine through its own inquiries. Concessionaires have a strong interest in ensuring that their contracted junket operators comply with their legal obligations for two primary reasons. First, they may be held jointly liable with the junket operator for any wrongdoing that occurs on casino premises. Secondly, all of the gaming concessionaires are publicly traded and listed corporations; there is considerable reputational, governance and legal risk involved for them in contracting junket operators. The fact that an operator is licensed does not absolve them of responsibility for oversight of their compliance with both the general law, and with the terms of their contracts.

A further factor which supported this approach is that three of the concessionaires are associated with Nevada casino licensees. Nevada Revised Statute 463 regulates gaming and industry participants in accordance with pronouncement of the State’s public policy parameters for the industry. The very first of those is the following: “The gaming industry is vitally important to the economy of the State and the general welfare of the inhabitants.” Those same words could easily have prefaced Law 16/2001.

Unlike Macau, with which it shares a strong dependence on gaming as a source of employment and government tax revenue, Nevada seeks to exert regulatory authority over its licensees and their affiliates when they involve themselves in foreign gaming operations. NRS 463.720 details a number of practices which are prohibited when a licensee (or affiliate under its control) is involved in foreign gaming operations. These include failing to conduct those operations in accordance with the standards of honesty and integrity required for gaming in Nevada, or entering into an association considered “unsuitable” for a Nevada licensee because it is contrary to the public policy of Nevada concerning gaming.

What is remarkable, given the periodic yelps of outrage concerning Macau’s regulation of junkets, is that Nevada has generally accepted that a jurisdiction can still function to a level it considers acceptable, and suitable for participation by its licensees, even if it does not as rigidly proscribe or enforce sanctions against criminal organizations or behavior. The normative standards to which some would have every jurisdiction aspire are not adopted by either of the two largest gaming jurisdictions on the planet.

RelatedPosts

Robert Goldstein to step aside as LVS Chairman and CEO from March 2026, replaced by Patrick Dumont

Robert Goldstein: Macau gaming market challenged by increased competition, online gambling and US-Sino trade war

Fri 30 May 2025 at 06:42
Macau’s hotel occupancy rate reaches 89% in July

Macau’s hotel occupancy rate climbed to 87.8% in April

Thu 29 May 2025 at 17:27
Editorial – Foreigner-only casinos: Seize the day

Editorial – Foreigner-only casinos: Seize the day

Thu 29 May 2025 at 13:38
On the brink

On the brink

Thu 29 May 2025 at 13:27
Load More

That demonstrates several things. First, there is no regulatory gold standard. If there was, every jurisdiction would be doing it, or aspiring to. Secondly, neither jurisdiction has the luxury of a large, diversified economic base; pragmatism requires them to be rather more expansive and progressive in their approach to their principal industry. That doesn’t mean abandoning standards, rather working co-operatively with the regulated to progressively lift them. Macau’s most recent AML Mutual Evaluation is testament to the wisdom of this approach.

Regulation 6/2002 came into force in Macau when GGR attributable to junket business was in excess of 70% of all casino GGR. Heavy-handed regulation and a high bar for suitability could conceivably have brought down the SAR, and left China with a problem it could not easily address. In part, this explains the PRC’s continuous exhortations to the SAR to diversify its economic base … clearly easier said than done, given little obvious progress has been made in the past 10 years.

Finally, to tax considerations. Law 16/2001 introduced the concept of a withholding tax on junket commissions. Junket remuneration received by way of a share of GGR enjoys an exemption from income tax, due to the fact that gross revenue is taxed in the hands of the concessionaire deriving it. While the full 5% has never been adopted, the point of the withholding was to accustom the junket operators to the discipline of being taxed on their earnings, at the time a novel concept.

As someone involved intimately in the set up and execution of this regime, it would be tempting to go defensive. I don’t need to do more than cite history and the responses adopted to the hand dealt to Macau. The current regulatory regime has delivered results consistent with context, circumstance and the public interest of the people of both Macau and arguably the PRC, which has had none of the issues it has experienced with the Hong Kong SAR.

I reckon that makes for good law, just as there are other good gaming laws as pertain in Nevada and Singapore: they speak to their origins and respective public interests, and allow pragmatism a role.

Tags: AMLcasino legislationCurrent IssueEdmund Ho Hau WahJunketsMacauPRCSTDM
Share20Share4
David Green

David Green

The founder of Newpage Consulting, David Green has advised on casino regulation in a number of geographies including New Zealand, Singapore, Macau, Cambodia and Japan. He served as Presiding Member of the Independent Gambling Authority in South Australia prior to relocating to Macau in 2001.

Current Issue

Editorial – Foreigner-only casinos: Seize the day

Editorial – Foreigner-only casinos: Seize the day

by Ben Blaschke
Thu 29 May 2025 at 13:38

I was recently asked by someone working at a foreigner-only casino for my thoughts on the outlook for the Asian...

On the brink

On the brink

by Pierce Chan
Thu 29 May 2025 at 13:27

The transition period for Macau’s 11 satellite casinos is set to expire at the end of this year, after which...

A moral defense of gambling

A moral defense of gambling

by Andrew Russell
Wed 28 May 2025 at 18:19

Economist Andrew Russell explores the differences between community benefit and in-principle arguments for the existence of a legal gambling industry...

Face to face

Face to face

by Ben Blaschke
Wed 28 May 2025 at 18:08

Konami caught the eye at the recent G2E Asia show in Macau with its SYNK Vision Tables, which utilize facial...

Evolution Asia
Aristocrat
GLI
Mindslot
Mindslot
Solaire
Hann
Tecnet
Nustar
Jumbo

Related Posts

Editorial – Foreigner-only casinos: Seize the day

Editorial – Foreigner-only casinos: Seize the day

by Ben Blaschke
Thu 29 May 2025 at 13:38

I was recently asked by someone working at a foreigner-only casino for my thoughts on the outlook for the Asian gaming industry. That’s quite a wide-reaching question with dozens of moving parts, but it got me thinking specifically about how...

A moral defense of gambling

A moral defense of gambling

by Andrew Russell
Wed 28 May 2025 at 18:19

Economist Andrew Russell explores the differences between community benefit and in-principle arguments for the existence of a legal gambling industry and why the latter is vital in winning over sentiment. When I was corresponding with this publication’s Managing Editor Ben...

Editorial – Knife’s edge

Editorial – Knife’s edge

by Andrew W Scott and Ben Blaschke
Tue 29 Apr 2025 at 15:14

Thailand’s Entertainment Complex journey is at a critical point, with the success or failure of the initiative to be determined by decisions made over the coming months. The common narrative now appears to be that legislation governing development of the...

A Baccarat perspective – Part 2

A Baccarat perspective – Part 2

by Ryan Hong-Wai Ho
Tue 29 Apr 2025 at 13:03

The first part of this series, published in the April issue of IAG, discussed the rise of baccarat in Macau’s gaming industry. Building on that discussion, Ryan Ho continues to examine the latest betting options shaping this iconic casino game....



IAG

© 2005-2024
Inside Asian Gaming.
All rights reserved.

  • SUBSCRIBE FREE
  • NEWSFEED
  • MAG ARTICLES
  • VIDEO
  • OPINION
  • TAGS
  • REGIONAL
  • EVENTS
  • CONSULTING
  • CONTRIBUTORS
  • MAGAZINES
  • ABOUT
  • CONTACT
  • ADVERTISE
  • 中文
  • 日本語

Welcome Back!

Login to your account below

Forgotten Password?

Retrieve your password

Please enter your username or email address to reset your password.

Log In

Add New Playlist

No Result
View All Result
  • 中文
  • 日本語
  • Subscribe
  • Newsfeed
  • Mag Articles
  • Video
  • Opinion
  • Tags
  • Regional
  • Events
  • Contributors
  • Magazines
  • Advertise
  • Contact
  • About
  • Home for G2E Asia

© 2005-2024
Inside Asian Gaming.
All rights reserved.

  • 中文
  • English
  • 日本語