Peh Hai Yam v Public Prosecutor: Betting Act & Baccarat Insurance
Peh Hai Yam appealed against his conviction by the District Judge for nine counts under s 5(3)(a) of the Betting Act for conspiring to provide Baccarat “insurance” to patrons of the casino at Resorts World Sentosa. The High Court, presided over by See Kee Oon J, dismissed the appeal, affirming the District Judge's findings that Peh Hai Yam was guilty of engaging in a conspiracy to act as a bookmaker. The court held that Baccarat “insurance” bet is a “bet” within the meaning of the definition of “bookmaker” under s 2(1) of the Betting Act.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court1.2 Outcome
Appeal Dismissed
1.3 Case Type
Criminal
1.4 Judgment Type
Judgment
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Peh Hai Yam was convicted for providing Baccarat 'insurance' at Resorts World Sentosa. The High Court upheld the conviction, clarifying the scope of the Betting Act.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Public Prosecutor | Respondent | Government Agency | Judgment for Respondent | Won | Hon Yi of Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Peh Hai Yam | Appellant | Individual | Appeal Dismissed | Lost |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| See Kee Oon | Judge | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Hon Yi | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Ong Ying Ping | Ong Ying Ping Esq |
| Lim Seng Siew | Ong Ying Ping Esq |
| Chew Zijie | Ong Ying Ping Esq |
4. Facts
- Peh Hai Yam conspired with accomplices to provide Baccarat 'insurance' to casino patrons at Resorts World Sentosa.
- Peh Hai Yam and Teo Chua Kuang agreed to jointly receive Baccarat “insurance” bets from casino patrons at the RWS Casino.
- Peh Hai Yam recruited Yong Tian Choy to be his runner at the Maxims and Maxims Platinum Clubs at the RWS Casino.
- Peh Hai Yam's wife, Tan Saw Eng, took over the running of the Baccarat “insurance” operation in the casino after Peh Hai Yam was prohibited from entering the Maxims and Maxims Platinum gaming areas.
- Peh Hai Yam and his accomplices were arrested by Police Officers from the Criminal Investigation Department’s Casino Crime Investigation Branch.
5. Formal Citations
- Peh Hai Yam v Public Prosecutor, Magistrate’s Appeal No 162 of 2015/01, [2017] SGHC 69
- Public Prosecutor v Peh Hai Yam, , [2016] SGMC 30
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Peh Hai Yam and Teo Chua Kuang agreed to jointly receive Baccarat “insurance” bets from casino patrons at the RWS Casino. | |
| Peh Hai Yam recruited Yong Tian Choy to be his runner at the Maxims and Maxims Platinum Clubs at the RWS Casino. | |
| RWS Casino discovered that Peh Hai Yam was entering into bets with other casino patrons and prohibited him from entering the Maxims and Maxims Platinum gaming areas. | |
| Peh Hai Yam and his accomplices were arrested by Police Officers from the Criminal Investigation Department’s Casino Crime Investigation Branch. | |
| District Judge’s Grounds of Decision reported as Public Prosecutor v Peh Hai Yam [2016] SGMC 30. | |
| Judgment reserved. | |
| Judgment issued. |
7. Legal Issues
- Definition of 'Bookmaker' under the Betting Act
- Outcome: The court held that the term 'bookmaker' in s 5(3)(a) of the Betting Act applies to persons who provide Baccarat 'insurance' to casino patrons.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Interpretation of 'bets or wagers'
- Applicability to Baccarat insurance
- Related Cases:
- [2016] SGMC 30
- [1996] 1 SLR(R) 952
- (1928) 2 KB 510
8. Remedies Sought
- Appeal against conviction
9. Cause of Actions
- Conspiracy to act as a bookmaker
10. Practice Areas
- Criminal Appeals
- Gambling Law
11. Industries
- Gambling
- Casinos
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Public Prosecutor v Peh Hai Yam | District Court | Yes | [2016] SGMC 30 | Singapore | The District Judge's decision 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 was affirmed. |
| Goh Gek Seng v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1996] 1 SLR(R) 952 | Singapore | Cited for the definition of 'bet' according to its natural and ordinary meaning. |
| Police v Thoms | Supreme Court | Yes | [1966] NZLR 1008 | New Zealand | Cited for the definition of 'bet' according to its natural and ordinary meaning. |
| Carlill v The Carbolic Smoke Ball Company | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1892] 2 QB 484 | England and Wales | Cited for difficulties courts had in defining whether a contract is a wagering contract. |
| R v Lim Keng Chuan | Supreme Court of the Straits Settlements | Yes | [1933] SSLR 187 | Singapore | Cited for the meaning of the word “wagering” found in the definition of a “common-betting house”. |
| Bennett v Ewens | King's Bench Division | Yes | (1928) 2 KB 510 | England and Wales | Cited for the principle that bets were being taken in relation to the game of whist being played. |
| Seay v Eastwood | Not specified | Yes | [1976] 1 WLR 1117 | Ireland | Cited to support a narrow definition of 'bet'. |
| Chua Seong Soi v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2000] 3 SLR(R) 271 | Singapore | Cited to claim that the offender was not charged under the Betting Act but under the Common Gaming Houses Act. |
| R (William Hill) v Horserace Betting Levy Board | Not specified | Yes | [2013] 1 WLR 3656 | England and Wales | Cited for the definition of a traditional bookmaker. |
| Public Prosecutor v Low Kok Heng | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2007] 4 SLR(R) 183 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that a penal provision should be construed strictly and in favour of the accused. |
| Lam Joon Shu v AG | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1993] 3 SLR(R) 156 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that it may sometimes be necessary “to read “and” in place of the conjunction “or”, and vice versa”, in order to give effect to Parliament’s intentions. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Betting Act (Cap 21, 2011 Rev Ed) s 5(3)(a) | Singapore |
| Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed) s 109 | Singapore |
| Betting Act s 2(1) | Singapore |
| Remote Gambling Act 2014 (No 34 of 2014) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Baccarat insurance
- Bookmaker
- Betting Act
- Resorts World Sentosa
- Casino patrons
- Side bets
15.2 Keywords
- Betting Act
- Baccarat
- Insurance
- Bookmaker
- Criminal Law
- Singapore
- Casino
- Gambling
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Casinos and Gambling | 90 |
| Statutory offences | 80 |
| Criminal Law | 75 |
| Criminal conspiracy | 60 |
16. Subjects
- Criminal Law
- Gambling
- Betting
- Statutory Interpretation