Some important provisions of the Act are yet to be implemented. The Act empowers the Government to make rules to regulate gaming, the form of permission, powers, duties and functions of the Gaming Commissioner, fees to be paid for transfer of licence, the manner of collection of fees etc. While no rules have been notified under the Act till date, the Government has mostly relied on selectively amending the Act or prescribing procedures through subordinate legislation. Though the Government notified the appointment of a Gaming Commissioner as an additional charge in January 2020, there is no fully institutionalised independent gaming regulatory system to monitor the complex casino gaming operations till date.
The Act doesn’t have an adequate anti-money laundering architecture. Though the Government of Goa has notified guidelines for casino operations under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA), there is hardly any robust system to track suspicious transaction reporting, beneficial ownership checks, junket regulation, high-value transaction tracking, source-of-fund verification, addiction safeguards, player protection measures, loss limits etc. In casino operations, the role of a junket operator or promoter in bringing high-value gamblers in return for commissions, incentives, accommodation, credit arrangements or revenue sharing is common. Further, beneficial ownership checks are also necessary to get clarity on multiple layers in casino operations and the benefits accruing at each layer, along with the ultimate person or entity owning, controlling and benefitting from the casino business arrangement. The Act or the delegated legislation has only a licensing and tax/fee collection mechanism, with no robust framework to get real-time tracking of players’ details, type of games played, extent of money involved, amount of gain or loss to each player, gross transactions etc.
As per the Act, no person other than a tourist shall have entry to the place or area where the game/games as authorised are actually conducted. The Act further defines “tourist” as a person or a group of persons who have attained the age of 21 years, including pilgrims who are on a visit to the State of Goa, and are not domiciled or permanently residing in the State of Goa, holding a valid tourist permit issued by the Gaming Commissioner. While the Act totally prohibits domiciled Goans from visiting casinos for gaming, till date there is no mechanism in place to issue a tourist permit by the Gaming Commissioner, and thus its implementation has remained blurred. The logic of drawing a distinction between a domiciled Goan and a tourist in restricting entry to the gaming arena is also a grey area in terms of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, which states that the State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws within the territory of India. The question is, if the Act seeks protection for a domiciled Goan for whatever reason, how is similar protection not required for a domestic tourist who is also an Indian.
As a matter of public policy, even if gaming is legally permitted, the more appropriate provisions could include age-based entry restrictions and statutory warnings on casino advertisements, entry tickets, websites and gaming offices, similar to warnings used for alcohol or tobacco. Possible statutory warnings could include ‘Gaming can be addictive’, ‘Play responsibly’, ‘Entry prohibited for persons below 21 years’, ‘Excessive gaming may cause financial distress’, ‘Gaming is not a source of income generation’ etc.
Most importantly, the expression ‘offshore casino’ used in the Act and subordinate legislation is a misnomer. Internationally, the term ‘offshore casino’ generally refers to casinos located outside territorial waters, on the high seas or in special maritime jurisdictions beyond ordinary domestic regulation. Therefore, the casino vessels docked in the river Mandovi don’t qualify to be called offshore casinos and the vessels themselves may also not be technically fit for offshore operations. Therefore, it may be appropriate to drop the expression ‘offshore’ altogether. The more appropriate terminology may be ‘floating casinos’, ‘water-based casinos’, ‘vessel-based casinos’ or ‘river casinos’.
Therefore, it is high time for Goa to enact modern gaming legislation at the earliest.
