Commission Against Corruption, Macao SAR

A complainant told the CCAC that the Gaming Inspection and Coordination Bureau (DICJ) fined his father once again for the same administrative violation.

The investigation revealed that in November 2021, the DICJ fined the party involved for nuisance at a casino and prohibited him from entering casinos. Subsequently, the DICJ issued the party involved a fine ticket and verbally informed him that he should submit to the bureau the proof of payment. In December of the same year, the Macao resident paid the fine at the Financial Services Bureau (DSF), but he did not submit the proof of payment to the DICJ. In February 2025, the DICJ, without verifying beforehand whether or not the resident had already paid the fine, sent the DSF a written request for coercive collection of the fine. Eventually, it was not until the complainant presented the proof of payment that the two departments communicated with each other and terminated the coercive collection procedure.

The CCAC believes that, in today's world, when various departments have long achieved interconnection of electronic information, the occurrence of such unreasonable, bureaucratic, and inefficient practices is rather unacceptable. The CCAC considers that since effective communication mechanisms for information exchange have been established between departments, the departments themselves should bear the responsibility to monitor the update progress of information and should not rely entirely on feedback from residents.

Following the CCAC's intervention, the DICJ has already added a reminder in its penalty notification letters stating that the proof of payment must be submitted to the bureau. It has also optimised the process by verifying payments through a connected computer system.