Connect with us

Gambling

China: Heavier penalties for cross-border gambling

Published

on

China: Heavier penalties for cross-border gambling

The penalties include fines up to RMB800,000 (US$110,395.04) and even life imprisonment for one case in the Zhejiang province.

With the goal of preventing financial risks and safeguarding economic security, courts across China will continue to impose harsh penalties on people involved in cross-border gambling crimes, especially those identified as organisers, ringleaders and repeated offenders. The directive has come directly from China’s Supreme People’s Court. 

Growing issues of overseas casinos and online gambling groups targeting Chinese citizens were highlighted by the court, in which these activities lead to significant domestic fund outflows while giving rise to various crimes that included money laundering, fraud, kidnappings and extortion.

“These crimes seriously affect social stability and economic security and damage the country’s image,” the court stated, as the reason for the directive demanding harsher penalties against such offenders. 

Recent cases include 34 suspects charged for operating illegal casinos and businesses where their organiser was sentenced to prison and fined RMB800,000 (US$110,395.04) by the Wenzhou Court Intermediate People’s Court in Zhejiang province; another case saw the court sentencing a ringleader to life imprisonment for 26 crimes, including operating casinos and illegal detention. 

The Supreme Court also classified the Alvin Chau and Suncity Group case as a “typical case of cross-border gambling.”

“The cross-border gambling syndicate implemented corporatization and professional operations, establishing a clear internal hierarchy and detailed division of labour while recruiting numerous gamblers,” the Supreme Court stated, in which Alvin Chau and Suncity’s operation fit the description.

Alvin Chau, charged with crimes including money laundering and criminal association, was sentenced to 18 years imprisonment and his assets were auctioned off following Macau’s Court of First Instance’s decision. His appeal to the Macau Court of Appeals was rejected.

Continue Reading