Macau Watchdog Rebukes DICJ Over Duplicate Casino Fine
Macau’s Commission Against Corruption (CCAC) said in a statement on Tuesday that it had rebuked the Gaming Inspection and Coordination Bureau (DICJ) for its attempt to collect a casino-related fine that had already been paid. The case, filed by a complainant on behalf of his father, concerned a Macao resident fined for “nuisance at a casino” in November 2021.
What the CCAC Found
According to the CCAC, the DICJ issued the resident a fine ticket and barred him from casino entry. The regulator also verbally told him to submit proof of payment to the bureau.
The resident paid the fine at the Financial Services Bureau (DSF) in December 2021 but did not submit the payment proof to the DICJ. In February 2025, the DICJ sent the DSF a written request for coercive collection without first verifying whether the fine had already been paid.
Collection efforts stopped only after the complainant presented proof of payment, and the two departments then communicated directly. The CCAC said the case reflected poor use of the communication channels already established between public departments.
In its statement, the CCAC described such “unreasonable, bureaucratic, and inefficient practices” as unacceptable when departments already have connected electronic information systems. It added that government departments should monitor information updates themselves and should not rely entirely on residents to correct administrative gaps.
In this case, the enforcement process involved at least two public bodies: the DICJ, which issued the penalty and casino exclusion, and the DSF, where the resident paid the fine. The CCAC’s criticism centred on the failure to cross-check those records before the collection process escalated.
DICJ’s Response
After the CCAC’s intervention, the DICJ added a reminder to its penalty notification letters that state proof of payment must be submitted to the bureau. The regulator also said it improved the process and now verifies payments through a connected computer system.
In a separate statement, the DICJ said it “attaches great importance” to the CCAC’s suggestions and had taken action to improve the relevant administrative procedures.
💡TGJ Take
This is a small case with a bigger compliance lesson. Macau’s casino regulator was not criticised for the fine itself, but for the failure to check payment status before it escalated enforcement. For land-based operators, the point is procedural: exclusion orders, casino nuisance cases, and penalty records depend on clean coordination between regulators and public finance systems. If the DICJ’s process changes as stated, operators should see fewer avoidable disputes tied to administrative enforcement, while residents should face less pressure to prove payments already recorded by another public body.
