Self-exclusion and family exclusion in Macau.
Who can be excluded, by whom, for how long — and the confirmation requirement that most published accounts of Macau's regime leave out.
Correction to the common account
Macau is frequently described as allowing a family member to exclude a relative from casinos. Read against the gazette, that is not what Article 6 says. A family application must be confirmed by the person to be excluded. There is no unilateral family exclusion in Macau.
1 ·What Article 6 actually provides
The DICJ Director may prohibit entry to all casinos, or only some of them, for a maximum of two years, to persons who request it or who confirm an application made for that purpose by a spouse, ascendant, descendant, or relative in the collateral line to the second degree.
Two things follow. First, exclusion is administered by the regulator, not by the operator — this is a DICJ decision, not a property-level ban. Second, the family route is a route to initiating an application, not a power to impose one. Without the subject's confirmation there is no interdiction.
2 ·Duration, revocation and renewal
| Question | Answer | Article |
|---|---|---|
| Maximum duration | Two years | Art. 6(1) |
| Scope | All casinos, or only some of them, as applied for | Art. 6(1) |
| Can it be lifted early? | The subject may request revocation at any time — but it takes effect only 30 DAYS AFTER the request | Art. 6(2) |
| Who is told about revocation? | The DICJ must notify whoever requested the interdiction, where that was not the subject | Art. 6(3) |
| Can it be renewed? | Yes, after expiry or revocation, on a new application presented or confirmed by the subject | Art. 6(4) |
The 30-day delay is the design feature worth understanding. It removes the possibility of an excluded person revoking in the moment and gambling the same evening — the cooling-off is structural, not discretionary.
3 ·What happens if an excluded person gambles anyway
Three separate consequences attach, and they are often conflated.
Winnings revert to the Region — net of losses
Prizes and other gaming benefits won by a person prohibited from gambling revert to the Macao SAR, after deduction of the respective losses. So do the concessionaire's revenues from that person's play, on the same net basis. The 2018 amendment introduced the net-of-losses wording; the earlier “amounts bet” reading no longer applies.
Chips can be seized on the spot
Where an interdicted person is found in a casino and there are indications of play, a DICJ inspector may make a cautious seizure of chips or other gaming benefits held. The seizure record must be signed by the inspector, by the casino's responsible officer and by the interdicted person; the items are entrusted to the casino's custody and deposited provisionally in its main treasury, and returned to the rightful owner once the decision becomes final — unless declared reverted to the SAR.
The operational consequence is easy to miss: the property must know in advance who its responsible officer is for this purpose, and that person must be reachable on every shift.
Referral for help requires consent
Where there are grounded indications that a person is affected by gambling addiction disorder, the DICJ may send their personal data to the Social Welfare Bureau (IAS) and request intervention — with their consent. Consent is a condition of the referral, not a formality recorded afterwards.
4 ·The data-protection layer
Under Article 16-C, the DICJ may present, confirm and permit the use of data on persons interdicted by judicial or administrative decision, including interconnecting that data with other public entities or with the concessionaires — under Law 8/2005, the Personal Data Protection Act. That is the legal basis on which an exclusion list reaches a property's systems at all, and the reason exclusion records carry data-protection obligations rather than sitting outside them.
5 ·Sources
- 1.Exclusion on request — duration, family route, confirmation — Law 10/2012 Art. 6(1), as republished by Law 17/2018, BO 52/2018, 27 Dec 2018Max 2 years · all or some casinos · spouse, ascendant, descendant or 2nd-degree collateral · the subject must request or confirm
- 2.Revocation, notification and renewal — Law 10/2012 Art. 6(2)–(4), BO 52/2018Revocation effective 30 days after the request · the applicant is notified · renewal on a new request presented or confirmed by the subject
- 3.Reversion of prizes and concessionaire revenues — Law 10/2012 Art. 11(1), BO 52/2018Both revert to the Macao SAR after deduction of the respective losses
- 4.Cautious seizure of chips — Law 10/2012 Art. 11-A, BO 52/2018Seizure record signed by the inspector, the casino's responsible officer and the interdicted person · chips held in the casino's main treasury
- 5.IAS intervention requires the person’s consent — Law 10/2012 Art. 16-B, BO 52/2018
- 6.Processing and interconnection of exclusion data — Law 10/2012 Art. 16-C, applying Law 8/2005, BO 52/2018
Interpretation and recommendations are Surveillance Intelligence Asia's own analysis.