20
NO. 34 OF 2014
(3) For the purposes of subsection (2), a person could not, with reasonable diligence, have ascertained that a remote gambling service provided by the person had a Singapore‑customer link, if the person had—
- (a) informed prospective customers that Singapore law prohibits the provision of the service to customers who are physically present in Singapore;
- (b) required customers to enter into contracts that were subject to an express condition that the customer was not to use the service if the customer was physically present in Singapore;
- (c) required customers to provide personal details and those details suggested that the customer was not physically present in Singapore;
- (d) obtained data that indicates that customers were physically present outside Singapore when the relevant customer accounts were opened, and throughout the period when the service was provided to the customers; and
- (e) taken such other measures as far as reasonably practicable to ensure that the service did not, or could not reasonably have, a Singapore-customer link.
(4) In determining whether any measure taken by a person under subsection (3)(e) is reasonably practicable, it is for that person to prove that—
- (a) it was not reasonably practicable to do more than what was in fact done; and
- (b) there was no better practicable means than was in fact used.
(5) An offence under subsection (1) is an arrestable offence.
Prohibition against Singapore-based remote gambling service
11.—(1) A person who provides a Singapore-based remote gambling service shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on conviction to a fine of not less than $20,000 and not more than $500,000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 7 years or to both.
