Lawmakers alarmed at limited inspection powers
INSPECTION powers to be given to the Financial Services Bureau (DSF) by the new junket operations bill and the limits to the duty of concerned parties to cooperate with the inspection authorities, have raised serious questions and a few red flags from lawmakers on the Second Standing Committee of the Legislative Assembly (AL).
While discussing the provisions of the bill, lawmakers found that besides the common inspection duties normally assigned to the Gaming Inspection and Coordination Bureau (DICJ), the new bill also assigns inspection duties to the DSF.
This is in spite of the lack of clarity in any of the legal provisions as to the duties and scope of the different Bureaus concerning inspection of the junkets and gaming concessionaires.
The committee president, Chan Chak Mo, noted that several lawmakers highlighted the abnormality of including the DSF as an inspector together with DICJ but found no provisions that hint at the different powers to be shared between the two Bureaus. This is a matter that lawmakers believe needs clarification.
Raising even more eyebrows is a rule in
Article 56 of the bill which states that “Any person or entity must collaborate with the MSAR government and provide all necessary support, providing DICJ and DSF with the necessary documents, information, elements or evidence when requested, even if these are documents, information, and elements subject to the duty of secrecy.”
This raised several concerns among lawmakers as, according to the bill, those who fail to comply will incur the crime of failing to comply with statutory directives.
Lawmakers need further information as to whether the rule can be enforced in this manner without a warrant from a judge as is required in the case of general laws.
They also expressed concerns over the professional confidentiality privileges of certain professionals such as lawyers, accountants, and others who might be caught between the need to comply with this rule or to comply with their professional obligation of privacy.
“Normally the authorities need a warrant from a judge to request this type of information such as confidential documents, bank statements, [etc.,] but this law does not state any of this, which leads lawmakers to question why is it so simple now to enforce such a rule, as well as what justifies the attribution of such a broad power,” Chan said.
“We need to ask the government why the rule is like this,” he added noting that the committee is not against or in favor of this regulation, but instead is seeking proper clarification of the legal intention.
The committee president noted that the main issue raised by the lawmakers is the fact that the rule has any exceptions or limitations, stating only “Any person or entity must collaborate.”
“This is an issue because it does not exclude people, professions, or places safeguarded by professional secrecy laws such as lawyers’ offices and others that are covered by very specific laws. We know that are other laws that might have precedence over this but we need clarification,” he said.
Questioned as to whether any provisions stated penalties in the case where authorities violate the secrecy of documents while conducting inspections, Chan admitted he did not know of any, pointing out to a potential regulation of the matter through the Statute of the Civil Servants.