Former worker ‘not 100% sure’ about Tak Chun conducting side betting

Despite admitting to having seen messages about side bets in company chat groups, a former Tak Chun Group worker confessed that he was not completely certain about side betting practices at the now-closed company, local media reports.

The former employee, who testified in court as a witness, confirmed that he is aware of the existence of a chat group comprising over 50 people. Messages within it apparently touched on side bets, according to local newspaper Macao Daily News.

In response to a question by the presiding judge, Justice Lam Peng Fai, about whether the witness considered Tak Chun to have operated side betting with customers, the witness answered in the affirmative.

He further testified that special formulae were used to process particular games, which was the grounds on which he thought his former employer was operating side betting. Special notes were used to indicate such revenues, the witness added.

However, when questioned by the lawyer representing Tak Chun’s former boss, Levo Chan, on whether he was completely certain that Tak Chun accepted side bets, the witness admitted that he was not.

According to the witness, members of the marketing team would be asked to start working once the alleged side bets have started and stop working when the bets have stopped.

Funds were then transferred between the accounts of the customers and Tak Chun. The witness added that transfers did not require approval from any side, only an acknowledgement by the account owner.

It was also revealed that the Central Cage of Tak Chun had the responsibility to approve a Marker – the term used in the VIP casino industry to refer to loans issued to customers – retrieve an outstanding Marker, and remind customers of interest accumulations.

At this stage, Chan’s lawyer reminded the witness that he may be subject to prosecution due to his testimony. The lawyer also reminded the witness that he had the right to decline further testification.

Prosecutor-coordination Lai U Hou was dissatisfied with this reminder and suggested that the lawyer was interfering with the judicial process. Justice Lam suspended the debate and suggested the witness clarify with the court before giving any testimony that might cause him further legal trouble.

At the end of the witness’ testimony, Chan requested to speak in defence of himself. The request was deferred by Justice Lam, who said the testimonies did not concern Chan, while emphasizing Chan’s presumption of innocence.
Local media outlet All About Macau reported that Chan had eventually broken his silence, unlike in the first hearing, during which he kept quiet.

Chan refuted the exhibits presented to the court by the Public Prosecutions Office (MP).

He emphasized that he had not seen the supposed teaching documents with Tak Chun’s logo on them, presented by the MP. He even denied that he had seen his employees compiling them.

The contents of the documents, such as starred figures, contain industry jargon and are not exclusive to Tak Chun.

To the question as to why he did not call the police, he said side betting between major gamblers and individual intermediaries is an open secret. He hinted that usually no clear record is kept. He also considered it impossible for his employees to spot such practices when the surveillance and security departments at casinos similarly could not detect them.

Chan also denied that he had instructed his former employees to destroy evidence. He said he did order them to destroy certain company property when Tak Chun ceased operations, but this was done out of fear that business competitors might gain access to them.

He emphasized that if this act had been done out of fear of prosecution, he would have done it as soon as Alvin Chau got arrested.