The second defendant in a criminal trial featuring former Sun City Group Junket boss Alvin Chowchuckwa has admitted his involvement in the so-called “winner” betting business.
But Tim Chow Chun-hee told Macau’s First Court on Friday that he “did not participate” in such activities and was just an investor. 파칭코사이트인포
Tim Chow told the court he had worked for the latter as a consultant for several years before acquiring leadership in UO Group Inc., a Macau-based company that does business including media and technology interests, although he was not affiliated with Alvin Chow.
Another company, called Soonest Technology Ltd, which is known to have offices in Macau, Zhuhai and Hong Kong, was mentioned in the trial indictment under the ownership of Tim Chau.
A total of 21 defendants are charged with illegal games, criminal union, fraud, and money laundering.
One of the defendants, Chungchicken, has already admitted his involvement in the multiplier business.
Along with the multiplier, a form of behind-the-scenes gambling, publicly declared bets at casino tables represent privately made bets that can in fact be several times the ‘official’ and thus avoid paying for Macau’s effective tax rate of 39% on casino total game revenue.
Tim Chow admitted on Friday in front of prosecutors Lau Yu-hau and judges Lu Ieng-ha that he had a “share” in a company dedicated to the multiplier betting business and described himself as an “investor” in those companies.
The defendant said multiplier betting was a “beneficial” practice in Macau.
He added: “So I didn’t think there would be a problem as long as I was running it and not participating in introducing it to customers, just acting as a shareholder and putting my money in the house and waiting for [business] results.”
Tim Chow went on to say, “Now that I know [the multiplier bet] was wrong, I will take legal responsibility for it.”
The indictment said Tim Chow’s role in the illegal gambling group founded by Alvin Chow was to process multiplier bets as well as ‘agent’ and ‘online’ bets and provide communication support for these bets through Soonest Technology.
During Friday’s session, Tim Chow told the court he also had difficulty understanding the difference between “online” and “subrogative” bets.
It is also commonly referred to as ‘remote gambling’ because both are not done directly. The key difference is that a middleman or a “delegate” usually exists in a casino by betting on a land-based casino table for someone who does not exist physically in the casino, but by giving instructions via phone or other electronic devices.
Tim Chau said that the role of Soonest Technology in general served as a technology provider to deliver messages to customers. He said there was no role in the content of these messages.
Defendant Chengchkin, who on Thursday acknowledged operational intervention in Macau’s multiplier betting business, formally admitted that such intervention had been over a long period of time and said he was “regrettable” to lawyer Chao Kokkueong, who represents him, on Friday.
However, he denied committing fraud against Macau authorities in connection with tax avoidance related to multiplier practices.
Chung said it was a private agreement between VIP customers and their agents without the casino operator’s intervention, and the victory or defeat through the multiplier was also privately agreed between the parties involved.
Mr. Cheng also said he did not acknowledge the crimes of participating in the criminal association led by Mr. Alvin Chow.
When asked by the latter’s lawyer, Leung Wong-fun, “whether the multiplier betting equates to the act of agents acting in cooperation with customers to deceive casino operators,” Cheng replied, “No.”
The defendant further suggested that their own multiplier bets do not involve “cheating” in the gambling process.
Mr Cheng admitted to Leung’s lawyer that Mr Alvin Chow had commissioned a client for a “several” multiplier bet.
The defendant was asked by Pedro Reel, another lawyer representing Mr Alvin Chow, whether people from Sun City had ever directly benefited from the multiplier betting business. “No,” Mr. Chung said.
In another development on Friday, the judge said Oct. 25 would set a deadline for Macau casino operators to decide at the end of criminal proceedings whether they want to submit compensation claims for defendants as related civil matters or start a completely separate civil action.