Casino ban no violation of right to free choice of employment

The criminal penalty of prohibiting an individual from entering a gaming area does not violate the right to free choice of employment, the Court of Second Instance of Macau ruled on Wednesday.
The decision concerns a 2014 case when an individual found guilty of usury for gambling inside a casino was given a suspended sentence of 7 months in jail and an extra criminal penalty of a two-year prohibition from entering casinos.
After lending HK$50,000 inside a gaming room to someone for the purposes of gaming, the individual received from the Judiciary Council of Macau a sentence of 7 months in jail suspended for one year and six months. In addition, and in spite of the fact that the individual was a first time offender, a penalty of a two-year prohibition from entering casinos was added.
Arguing that the prohibition from entering gaming areas for two years would prevent him from working in any casino in Macau, the individual appealed the sentence to the Court of Second Instance on the grounds that this penalty would breach Article 35 of the Basic Law, which grants the right to the free choice of employment. Instead, the appeal suggested that the prohibition from entering casinos should also be a suspended sentence.
The Second Court of Instance denied the appeal explaining that Article 60 of the Penal Code enables courts in Macau to prohibit individuals from entering certain places, such as casinos. The Court of Second Instance also quoted Article 15 of law number 8/96/M, which clearly states that for the crime of usury for gambling the court may decide to add an extra penalty of banning individuals from casinos for a certain time and that it does not violate the right to free choice of employment. Furthermore, the court explained that there is no law in Macau that allows this type of extra penalty to be suspended.
J.S.F.