The Court of Final Appeal (TUI) has ruled that local casino companies are not under “exclusive operations” and their employees do not enjoy civil servant status.
The judgement was made in response to at least two previous “conflicting” rulings – as pointed out by the top court – which had deemed the nature of casino operation rights in two opposite directions.
Two separate croupiers have at different times been charged with Civil Service Embezzlement, with them conducting gambling fraud and theft of casino chips, respectively. The first croupier was convicted of the crime, while the latter has had the charge amended by the lower court to Abuse of Trust.
With appeals filed for both cases, for the first appellant, the middle court ruled that the casino license had been issued to three companies, meaning that the complainant was not the sole operator of casinos in Macau. The middle court found this reality not fitting the definition of “exclusive operations” and thus casino operators’ employees were not civil servants or at least should not be classified as such.
As for the second appellant, the middle court found the base court had made an erroneous decision in identifying casino operators as not being under exclusive operations. The middle court has thus continued to press the charge of Civil Service Embezzlement.
The crime of Civil Service Embezzlement can only be charged against civil servants or employees of companies with “exclusive operations”, such as water and power suppliers.
With diverging interpretation on similar scenarios, the Public Prosecutions Office (MP) sought a uniform interpretation from the appeal court, which in legal terms is referred to as extraordinary appeal.
Before its consideration process, the top court pinpointed the topic of debate as whether or not casino operation companies should be understood as “exclusive operators” and whether their employees ought to be accorded civil servant status.
The court deemed that pursuant to Law 6/82/M with amendments by Law 10/86/M, there are two types of concessions, namely monopoly or oligopoly, as well as special permits. Casino operation rights, meanwhile, fall in the latter type, the court ruled.
The court further interpreted that whether pursuant to the Gambling Law No 16/2001 or No 7/2022, casino licenses are tendered by the government to local companies, despite the two laws having different provisions on the type of concession.
It also referred to legal interpretations made by the middle court and academics on “exclusive operations” to suggest that with more than one operator, the situation should not be understood as “exclusive operations.”
If the concept of “exclusive operations” is restricted to activities reserved to or requiring approval from the government, legal interpretations on the same law will be contradictory.
Secretary for Economy and Finance Lei Wai Nong’s introduction to Law No 7/2022 at its first reading at the parliament was also cited to prove that a reason behind the amendment of the law was to eliminate the concept of “exclusive operations” from the Gambling Law.
As such, the top court ruled that casino operations should not be understood as “exclusive operations,” while casino staff do not enjoy civil servant status.
The city’s casino market is an oligopoly due to the fact that only six companies are allowed to operate the service in Macau.
