Peh Hai Yam v Public Prosecutor

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: See Kee Oon J
• Judgment Date: 05 April 2017
• Neutral Citation: [2017] SGHC 69
• Plaintiff Counsel: Ong Ying Ping, Lim Seng Siew and Chew Zijie (Ong Ying Ping Esq)
• Docket Number: Magistrate’s Appeal No 162 of 2015/01
• Date: 05 April 2017
• Hearing Date: 06 January 2017
• Subject Matter: Statutory Offences,Criminal Law,Betting Act
• Published date: 11 April 2017
• Defendant Counsel: Hon Yi (Attorney-General's Chambers)
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Citation: [2017] SGHC 69
• Year: 2017

See Kee Oon J: Introduction

The appellant, Peh Hai Yam, was convicted after trial before a District Judge on nine counts under s 5(3)(a) of the Betting Act (Cap 21, 2011 Rev Ed) read with s 109 of the Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed) for conspiring with various accomplices to provide Baccarat “insurance” to patrons of the casino at Resorts World Sentosa (“RWS Casino”). The rules of Baccarat and Baccarat with Insurance are summarised at [16] of the District Judge’s Grounds of Decision which is reported as Public Prosecutor v Peh Hai Yam [2016] SGMC 30 (“GD”):

Baccarat was one of the games offered at RWS Casino. Players who join the Baccarat tables play against the House (ie, the casino operator) by placing their bets on the designated betting areas on the table. According to the RWS, Baccarat with Insurance game rules (“the Rules”) (exhibits P11 and P12), in certain situations after the first four cards have been dealt, players who have bet on either “Player” or “Banker” may, additionally, place an insurance bet by betting on “Player Insurance” or “Banker Insurance”, provided that the payout from the insurance bet does not exceed the value of the original bet placed on “Player” or “Banker”.

The District Judge sentenced the appellant to five months’ imprisonment and a fine of $25,000 for each of the first eight charges, and to five months’ imprisonment for the ninth charge. He ordered the imprisonment terms in respect of two charges to run consecutively, resulting in the total sentence of 10 months’ imprisonment and $200,000 fine (in default eight months’ imprisonment).¹

The appellant is not appealing against the District Judge’s factual findings or the sentence imposed, but only against his conviction. The appeal centres on a point of law. The appellant argues that the District Judge erred in finding that the term “bookmaker”, as used in s 5(3)(a) of the Betting Act, applies to persons who provide Baccarat “insurance” to casino patrons. The respondent submits that the District Judge correctly interpreted the term “bookmaker” in accordance with both the plain and purposive reading of the relevant provisions of the Betting Act.

Background facts

The undisputed facts and findings of the District Judge are set out in [13] to [65] of the GD. As the appellant is not challenging the District Judge’s factual findings, I will briefly set out only those background facts that are material to the present appeal.

Sometime in 2010, the appellant and one Teo Chua Kuang (also known as “Meng Tee”) agreed to jointly receive Baccarat “insurance” bets from casino patrons at the RWS Casino. They offered the same odds as the RWS Casino. The appellant and Meng Tee agreed to split the winnings and losses, with Meng Tee taking a 30% share and the appellant taking a larger 70% share, as he was providing the funds to back the bets. This enterprise of offering Baccarat “insurance” bets grew considerably to the extent that Meng Tee had to hire runners to help solicit and receive Baccarat “insurance” bets from casino patrons.

Sometime in September 2010, the appellant recruited one Yong Tian Choy (“Yong”) to be his runner at the Maxims and Maxims Platinum Clubs at the RWS Casino. The appellant gave gaming chips to Yong and instructed him to approach casino patrons at the Baccarat tables and offer them the option of placing Baccarat “insurance” bets with the appellant instead of the casino.

In June 2011, the RWS Casino discovered that the appellant was entering into bets with other casino patrons and prohibited him from entering the Maxims and Maxims Platinum gaming areas. Thereafter, the appellant’s wife, one Tan Saw Eng (“Tan”) took over the running of the Baccarat “insurance” operation in the casino. Tan ensured that the runners had sufficient chips to handle Baccarat “insurance” bets and also provided daily updates of their winnings and losses to various persons, including the appellant. Yong continued to receive the “insurance” bets from casino patrons.

On 2 November 2011, the appellant and his accomplices were arrested by Police Officers from the Criminal Investigation Department’s Casino Crime Investigation Branch.

The decision below

Before the District Judge, the respondent adduced evidence from a total of 15 witnesses, three of whom were involved in the conspiracy to offer Baccarat “insurance” bets to patrons of the RWS Casino. Three witnesses who were patrons of the RWS Casino testified that Yong had offered them “insurance” bets at the same odds as those offered by the RWS Casino, and that they had placed bets with Yong on multiple occasions.

The appellant denied receiving “insurance” bets from the Baccarat players at the RWS Casino, and claimed that he was only sharing bets with friends as they all liked to gamble together.² The appellant contended that s 5(3)(a) of the Betting Act did not apply to games of mixed skill and chance, and did not cover Baccarat or the giving of Baccarat “insurance”.³ The appellant also argued that the operation of the Baccarat “insurance” scheme did not operate like a “classic” bookmaking scheme and that it was not possible to tell whether Yong was acting as a bookmaker or a punter.⁴

The District Judge held that Yong, who had received Baccarat “insurance” bets from patrons at the RWS Casino, was a “bookmaker” within the meaning of s 2(1) of the Betting Act. Specifically, the District Judge found at [84] that a Baccarat “insurance” bet was considered a “bet” within the meaning of the definition of “bookmaker” under s 2(1) of the Betting Act:

A fortiori, in the present case, notwithstanding that Baccarat may be a game of chance or of mixed chance and skill under the Common Gaming Houses Act (Cap 49, 1985 Rev Ed), I am of the view that an insurance bet, which is a bet on an event or contingency relating to an outcome in the Baccarat game, is still a “bet” within the meaning of the definition of bookmaker in the Betting Act.

Thus, the District Judge was satisfied that the appellant and his accomplices, including Yong, had contravened s 5(3)(a) of the Betting Act which criminalises the act of being a bookmaker in any place.⁵ With respect to the appellant specifically, the statements given by his accomplices to the police clearly implicated him as being part of the conspiracy to offer Baccarat “insurance” bets at the RWS Casino.⁶ The District Judge also rejected the appellant’s claim that the patrons who had placed Baccarat “insurance” bets with his accomplices were friends with whom he was sharing bets.⁷ The District Judge thus convicted the appellant accordingly.

Arguments on appeal

As mentioned at [3], the appeal centres on the appellant’s argument that the District Judge erred in finding that the term “bookmaker” in s 5(3)(a) of the Betting Act applies to persons who provide Baccarat “insurance” to casino patrons.⁸ The appellant contends that the “bets or wagers” referred to in the definition of “bookmaker” in s 2(1) of the Betting Act are limited to bets or wagers in respect of horse-races or other sporting events, and do not cover bets on games of chance, such as Baccarat, that are played in casinos. The appellant submits that such an interpretation is in line with Parliament’s intention in enacting the Betting Act which was only to regulate betting on horse-races and sporting events.⁹

The respondent’s position is that the appellant’s grounds of appeal are without merit and that on a plain and purposive reading, the act of providing Baccarat “insurance” falls squarely within the scope of the Betting Act. The respondent contends that the term “bets or wagers” should be interpreted in line with its plain, ordinary meaning and applies to “bets or wagers” on any event. Further, the respondent submits that there is no evidence that Parliament intended for the Betting Act to be read restrictively to cover only “bets and wagers” on horse-races and sporting events.

My decision

There is essentially only one legal question in this appeal, and it is whether a Baccarat “insurance” bet, which is a bet on an event or contingency relating to the outcome in a Baccarat game, is a “bet” within the meaning of the definition of “bookmaker” in s 2(1) of the Betting Act (“the definition issue”). The appellant has also raised other issues (“the appellant’s other contentions”) pertaining to the District Judge’s findings of law which I will briefly address in the course of this judgment for completeness.

Having carefully considered the arguments, I am of the view that a Baccarat “insurance” bet is a “bet” within the meaning of the definition of “bookmaker” under s 2(1) of the Betting Act. I therefore affirm the District Judge’s findings that the appellant’s accomplices were “bookmakers” under the Betting Act, having received Baccarat “insurance” bets from patrons at the RWS Casino. My reasons are set out below.

The definition issue

Section 5(3)(a) of the Betting Act provides as follows:

(3) Any person who —

(a) acts as a bookmaker in any place;

…

shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on conviction to a fine of not less than $20,000 and not more than $200,000 and shall also be punished with imprisonment for a term not exceeding 5 years.

[emphasis added]

The term “bookmaker” is defined in s 2(1) of the Betting Act as follows:

…any person who, whether on his own account or as penciller, runner, employee or agent for any other person, receives or negotiates bets or wagers whether on a cash or on a credit basis and whether for money or money’s worth, or who in any manner holds himself out or permits himself to be held out in any manner as a person who receives or negotiates those bets or wagers; but does not include a club, its officers or employees or any other person or organisation operating or conducting a totalisator or pari-mutuel or any other system or method of cash or credit betting authorised under...