What is plainly clear s. 4B only deals with the subject of dealing with or transacting in gaming machines and nowhere does it relate to online gambling. Woo Lee Lee saw the use of s. 4B of the CGHA (Common Gaming Houses Act 1953) as the predicate offence in an application for forfeiture under s. 56(1)(c), that is proceeds of an unlawful activity… focusing on s. 4B of the CGHA, that provision criminalises any act of, inter alia, dealing with, transacting in, importing, manufacturing, selling, servicing and repairing gaming machines or the combination of them. “In relation to AMLATFPUAA, the case of PP v.
“It is quite obvious, that despite the Government's ongoing war against illegal gambling both the CGHA and the Betting Act 1953 have not caught up with the times and they have not been updated to include express provisions for making online gambling illegal” “To conclude the discussion on the definition of “thing” and “property” and the position of a bank account under s. 3 and 56(1)(d) AMLATFPUAA (Anti-Money Laundering, Financing of Terrorism and Proceeds of Unlawful Activity Act 2001), this court's findings are hereby summarised as follows: (i) a bank account is not a “thing” under the limb (a) of the definition of “instrumentalities” (ii) whilst cash standing credit in a bank account is an asset and a property, a bank account on the other hand is not an “asset” under limb (a) to the definition of “property” (iii) a bank account is not a “legal document or instrument” or “deposits and other financial resources” under limb (b) to the definition of “property”, and hence (iv) a bank account is not a “property” under s. 3 and it further follows therefore (v) a bank account is not “instrumentalities of an offence” under s. 3 and 56(1)(d) and finally and (vi) a bank account cannot be the subject of forfeiture under s. 56(1)(d) AMLATFPUAA.”
0 kommentar(er)
