Case defendant describes parallel betting as ‘grey area’

A defendant in the case concerning Suncity Group has described the practice of parallel betting as falling “within a grey area.”

The seventh defendant, Lou Sek Fung, who worked at the Suncity as the head of the Marketing Department, “strongly opposed” the accusations regarding his role as a leader in an illegal gambling syndicate who handled marketing and fundraising.

He pointed out that the Marketing Department only handled administrative work. It was his understanding that, given the decades of parallel betting in Macau, the practice is not illegal. At worst, it is within a grey area of the law.

He added that fundraising is an operational matter and had nothing to do with him. He emphasized that he had never instructed co-workers to promote parallel betting and that there was no evidence that he was involved in the promotion or luring of parallel betting.

It was alleged that Lou was the shareholder of a parallel betting company. In response, the defendant noted he was holding the shares on behalf of a friend. When questioned on the parallel betting training document seized from his home, he explained it was given to him by the then director of Suncity’s Marketing Department but had been ignored for two to three years.

Lou pointed to the fifth defendant, Cheong Chi Kin, as being involved in operating parallel betting.

Prosecutor Coordinator Lai U Hou questioned Lou on his part in a chat group that held discussions on parallel betting. Lai cited a message that stated, “Do not mention parallel betting; after all it’s not legal.”

Lou responded that the message was sent by a member called Leo who was unrelated to him. He emphasized that, due to the large volume of chats and messages each day from multiple groups, he had muted most of the groups and ignored most of the messages. His colleagues would contact him by phone if important matters arose, he added.

At the same court hearing, the first defendant, Alvin Chau, proactively added that when Lou made suggestions on the credit level to be assigned to UE Company, he told Lou to reply to UE about the matter.

Chau said that as the law was not changed in 2019, he viewed the practice as legal before and after that year. In addition, he emphasized that Suncity’s withdrawal from UE was “conducted in broad daylight,” while handling customers affected by Suncity’s withdrawal was an act of responsibility, he said.