A shining example in Southeast Asia

Aside from being a regional gaming hub housing one of the same operators that the MSAR does, and offering online gaming (although limited in scope), Singapore is home to a landmark ruling involving the Savan Vegas Hotel and Entertainment Complex in Laos, a company originally owned by a locally registered entity.
Explaining the case, Lau Kok Keng of law firm Rajah & Tann – a firm with bases in 10 countries, including Singapore and China – tells Business Daily that “the fact that the case was tried in Singapore had less to do with our gaming regulatory standards than with our reputation as a first class global arbitration centre” given that the “parties had designated Singapore as the seat of arbitration of disputes under the relevant investment treaty”.
The case ruled that the MSAR fell under the ‘moving treaty frontier rule’ including Macau under a bilateral investment treaty signed by Laos and China in 1993 enabling Sanum Investments to pursue capital investment benefit losses brought about by taxes deemed unfair that were levelled by the Laos Government against it, eventually resulting in the complex’s seizure by the Laos government and subsequent sale to Macau Legend, current owner and operator.

Strong framework
Compared to other jurisdictions, Lau points out that the framework in place in Singapore is “as comprehensive a model as it can get” within Southeast Asia although there is still much “catching up to do compared with jurisdictions such as the UK, Norway and Australia, if only because they are far more mature gaming jurisdictions”.
The most common cases that the firm sees are “a good mix of cases of businesses intending to establish or who already have established part of their operations in Singapore which support the online gambling industry (and who therefore need to be advised on compliance requirements), and advising exempt operators on contractual and regulatory compliance matters”.
In addition, the lawyer points out that “overseas land-based casinos also seek advice on their dealings with Singapore customers and bank accounts,” coupled with companies “who wish to promote their products by conducting lucky draws, quizzes and sweepstakes”.
The companies supporting online gaming rely upon the 2014 Remote Gambling Act, set up in 2014, explains the legal expert, who notes that “many provisions” of the Act “were left vague and open to interpretation (perhaps deliberately),” giving rise to an increase in legal advice being sought.
“The exempt operators themselves had compliance issues to deal with, given the level of control and scrutiny sought to be imposed by the regulator as part of the conditions of the grant of certificates of exemptions,” he points out, while noting that the firm itself worked with one of the two exempt operators granted licences last year. The granting itself evoked resistance and opposition from various quarters in the city, he says.
The main question, opines Lau, is “whether there will be a licence granted for a third integrated resort casino to operate should the economy continue to be in the doldrums over the next couple of years”.
Law firm Rajah & Tann is part of the Lex Mundi independent lawyer network. Comments were provided courtesy of Lex Mundi.