Attorney Shao Shiwei | If a Chinese National Provides Technical Support to an Overseas Casino While Abroad, Will They Be Arrested Upon Returning to China?

With respect to the foregoing issues, the client expressed some remorse and told me that, because he had previously come across a case in which a Chinese national worked as a croupier at an overseas casino and, although arrested upon returning to China, was ultimately not prosecuted by the procuratorate, he believed that it was not unlawful for Chinese nationals to work for gambling websites abroad. He further reasoned that the gambling websites operated overseas under licenses and were therefore lawfully operated, and that the platform with which he cooperated was not specifically targeted at users in mainland China; accordingly, he had long believed that his work would likely not pose significant legal risk.

In fact, his understanding reflects a view shared by many. In my daily practice, I have received dozens, if not hundreds, of consultations from clients raising similar questions, such as:

• We operate a voice-chat platform, and certain content involves pornography; however, we operate overseas. Does this entail legal risk?

• We operate an online Texas Hold’em platform where users are required to pay entry fees, and chips won can be redeemed for cash. The platform is currently operated overseas. Does this entail legal risk?

• Our company is based in mainland China, and our boss has instructed us to pose as affluent, attractive women to defraud foreigners located overseas. Would we face legal risk?

The essence of the above questions is the same: those seeking advice often believe that they are safe so long as they are physically located overseas or the illegal or criminal activities in which they engage are not directed at persons within mainland China.

Attorney Shao has previously discussed the legal provisions on territorial jurisdiction and personal jurisdiction in earlier articles and will not repeat them here (please click below toread related materials). In short, so long as there is a connecting factor with China or Chinese citizens, China has jurisdiction.

The client stated that, although he had thoroughly reviewed the applicable legal provisions before engaging in the business and was aware of the concepts of personal jurisdiction and territorial jurisdiction, he believed he would not face liability because he had found a case in which a croupier was not prosecuted.

In day-to-day practice, some clients possess a certain capacity for learning and legal research, and they may discuss with me whether their cases can be adjudicated in line with the relevant precedents they have identified.

However, law is one thing and practice another. Moreover, China is not a common-law jurisdiction. In addition to statutory provisions, courts and procuratorates in different regions have their own internal detailed rules on sentencing, and the particularities of each case must also be taken into account. For certain contentious cases, coordination and consultation among the “Three Chiefs” at the higher level and the “Three Chiefs” at the lower level are required.

Accordingly, the ultimate disposition of any given case cannot be “predicted” solely on the basis of existing legal provisions and publicly available judicial decisions and judgments.

Taking the client’s inference in this matter as an example, he only saw a news report stating that the croupier was ultimately not prosecuted. But what did the croupier state in the interview records? Was the evidence in this case sufficient to support a conviction? How long had the croupier been employed, and what was his or her salary? Was the decision not to prosecute based on minor circumstances, or on insufficient evidence? Such information contained in the case file is inaccessible to anyone other than the handling officers and counsel in the case.

Furthermore, in this era of widespread internet connectivity, information is ubiquitous, so everyone should carefully assess the reliability of such information. For instance, in a WeChat article published by a marketing account offering Philippine intermediary services, I came across an absurd so-called “legal awareness” piece (see image below).

  Thus, the law is in fact quite complex; rigidly applying past approaches without regard to changing circumstances will only harm oneself. If you genuinely have legal questions, it is more reliable to seek advice from qualified lawyers.

Over the past eight years of practicing law, Attorney Shao has interacted with hundreds of clients in criminal cases. If categorized by their understanding of the law, these clients fall into four groups:

1. Those who truly lacked legal knowledge, with the conduct at issue falling within their blind spots;

2. Those who, due to the lag in legal development and the absence of explicit statutory guidance, were unable to determine whether their conduct was unlawful or to discern the boundary between administrative illegality and criminal liability (for example, emerging sectors such as NFT digital collectibles and industries involving blockchain and Web3);

3. Those who roughly understood that their conduct might be unlawful but believed it would not rise to the level of a crime, given sufficiently high returns;

4. They are fully aware that their conduct is unlawful, yet they stand to gain substantial profits;

The mental state of parties involved in gambling-related cases generally falls within Category 3 or Category 4.

Category 3 is commonly seen in certain traditional online games, blockchain-based games (GameFi), live-streaming platforms, or card-game platforms such as Texas Hold'em. The parties believe they have adopted certain measures to circumvent the law, but in substance their activities still constitute disguised gambling. However, excessively high returns may cause them to temporarily overlook potential risks.

Category 4 is commonly seen among individuals who provide services to online gambling platforms, including but not limited to casino owners, staff members (dealers, operations, finance, technical personnel, etc.), and collaborators of the casino (agents, promoters, third-party payment settlement platforms, server providers, advertising and promotion personnel, etc.). For owners and actual controllers, high returns motivate them to “test the limits of the law,” while other personnel can also earn incomes that are higher than those from ordinary jobs.

In addition, there are other consultees who, upon realizing that their business may entail risks, first seek legal advice from lawyers to understand where the red lines of legal risk lie, and then decide whether it is “worthwhile” for them to assume such risks.

Although, as defense counsel, it is a lawyer’s duty to safeguard the legitimate rights and interests of clients within the legal framework, Attorney Shao nevertheless wishes to remind everyone that one must not rely on luck. Gambling-related cases are subject to severe punishment across all regions of China. The recent RMB 3 billion case involving the operation of a casino resulted in a suspended sentence due to case-specific factors; this by no means implies that all cases can be treated similarly.

In short, when engaging in related work, it is advisable to adhere to the legal red lines. This is not only responsible for oneself, but also a form of protection for one’s family and children.