Jorge Godinho, especialista em Direito do Jogo
Can Macau casino concessionaires operate fixed-odds sports betting on their premises? By looking at the key applicable legislation — Law 16/2001, which states in art. 3(6) that “pari-mutuel betting cannot be operated in casinos, nor operations offered to the public” — one could think so, given that fixed-odds betting and pari-mutuel betting are quite different things. The law states that casinos cannot operate pari-mutuel betting, which is the classic betting system in horse racing, but modern sports betting (on football, basketball, and many other sports) is not operated like that.
The inevitable conclusion is that unlawful online fixed-odds betting is not criminalised. It is not a crime under current Macau law. There is no way whatsoever to jump over the crystal-clear letter of the law.
Pari-mutuel betting is defined by the said Law 16/2001 as “a system for betting on animal races or sports events in which the winners split among themselves the total amount wagered proportionally to the amount wagered individually, after the deduction of commissions, fees, and taxes”. This is a classic definition of pooled betting. All bets of a given type go into a common pool, the operator takes a house cut, and the remaining pool is divided among the winning bettors. The odds may fluctuate until betting closes; a totalizator does the calculations. This betting system was used in horse racing (up until racing ended in 2024), greyhound racing (ended 2018) and in jai alai (ended 1990).
In fixed-odds betting the mechanics are different: as the name says, odds lock when bets are placed and then do not fluctuate. The money bet is not contractually pooled: this is not “mutual” in a legal sense.
So why is art. 3(6) of Law 16/2001 still talking only about “pari-mutuel betting”? The only explanation is inertia: somebody was sleeping.
However, at this point the reader may be thinking that “this is a technical mistake, but at the end of the day it is no big deal”, as no casino executive in his or her right mind would think of trying to start a sports betting operation on the basis of a supposed “loophole” in a law that clearly was poorly drafted.
Right. But it gets much worse when we move to criminal law. Here, this same mistake — to talk about “pari-mutuel betting”, which is one subtype, when the law should speak only of the general category, “betting”, without distinguishing subtypes — has a very real and practical consequence: it operates a restriction of the scope of criminal laws against unlawful gaming.
Let’s see: what happens if someone offers online fixed-odds sports betting (on football, for example) online in Macau without a license? Is it a crime? Under the recent Law 20/2024 on gaming crimes, it is not. Article 7 criminalises the unlawful online operation of games of chance (which means casino games of chance and slot machines) and the online operation of “pari-mutuel betting”. Therefore, the law does not criminalise all types of unlawful sports betting operations. It only criminalises “pari-mutuel” betting. Where the law distinguishes, we must distinguish. The express mention of one subtype implies the exclusion of others.
Poor drafting is a fatal flaw in criminal law. Concepts derived from other legal or business areas cannot suddenly become much broader in a criminal law context, and must follow the non-criminal reality from where they originate. Therefore, the inevitable conclusion is that unlawful online fixed-odds betting is not criminalised. It is not a crime under current Macau law. There is no way whatsoever to jump over the crystal-clear letter of the law.
The law should be modified (by deleting the words “pari-mutuel”) as quickly as possible
This conclusion is inevitable under the principle of legality. Conduct not expressly criminalised cannot be punished (article 29, Macau Basic Law: “residents shall not be punished by law, unless their acts constitute a crime and they shall be punished for it as expressly prescribed by law at the time”). Due to the principle of legality, the (land-based or online) unlawful operation of fixed-odds betting is not criminalised.
This, of course, does not make sense from a criminal policy perspective. The previous laws of 1977 and 1996 mentioned only pari-mutuels because at the time there was no fixed-odds betting, which started in 1998. Since this year, the criminal law has not been updated, leaving a gap. It is incomprehensible that such a simple matter was overlooked. The law still talks about pari-mutuel betting as if all betting was like that. This is wrong, as there is a separation between pari-mutuel betting and fixed-odds betting. The conclusion is that the law should be modified (by deleting the words “pari-mutuel”) as quickly as possible.
Does this matter? In a time in which there are constant news about unlawful online gaming operations, namely by organised crime syndicates that also do “pig butchering”, scam farms, and so on, what would happen if some of the suspects were charged in Macau? Well, any charges related to unlawful online fixed-odds sports betting would fail.
