MBS’ ban on ex-top executive sparks debate over fairness of ‘unwelcome person’ notices at IR

The unprecedented use of a persona non grata notice by Marina Bay Sands to ban a former top casino executive from the entire integrated resort over alleged high-roller and staff poaching has raised questions about the legality and fairness of such notices.

Legal experts told The Straits Times that such a move is highly unusual, and while it does not contravene the Casino Control Act, the sweeping ban has sparked debate over whether it is too wide-ranging and whether the integrated resort is entitled to ban people from quasi-public spaces within its premises.

A quasi-public property refers to a space that is privately owned but open to public access. This could include shopping malls and lobbies of hotels and office buildings. 

The Straits Times had reported on Aug 28 that Resorts World Sentosa (RWS) chief casino officer Andrew MacDonald and another RWS executive, Ms Louise Ng, were each issued persona non grata notices prohibiting them “from entering or remaining on any part of Marina Bay Sands integrated resort premises”.

The ban, which took effect on July 31, would mean both executives would not be able to enter areas “including but not limited to the hotel, mall, convention centre and casino”.

MBS has not stated publicly why the two are no longer welcome, but media reports said the notices were issued over concerns that Mr MacDonald might have been attempting to poach MBS customers and staff during several visits to the property in July 2024.

Mr MacDonald, who was with MBS for nearly 12 years before joining RWS, has denied the allegations.

It is not uncommon for casinos to issue persona non grata (or unwelcome person) notices to unruly people.

In the US, American socialite Paris Hilton was banned in 2010 from two Wynn resorts – Wynn Las Vegas and Encore – on the Las Vegas Strip, after she was arrested for investigation of felony cocaine possession.

Former Batman star Ben Affleck was also banned from playing blackjack at Hard Rock Hotel and Casino in Las Vegas in 2014 for card counting.

Legal experts said it is well within the rights of private property owners to issue persona non grata notices.

LVM Law Chambers associate director Justin Chan noted that private property owners in general can refuse anyone entry to their premises and are not obliged to give reasons for their decision.

In this latest instance, the Gambling Regulatory Authority has said the ban was a “business decision imposed by the casino operators”.

Lawyer Peter Doraisamy said that besides casinos, hotels and supermarkets here have also issued persona non grata notices on individuals.

That said, Mr Doraisamy pointed out that even though commercial entities “mostly have freedom to ban individuals from their private premises”, owners of quasi-public spaces also need to consider whether it is fair to do so.

He added that the MBS integrated resort has all the elements of a quasi-public place, with a hotel, convention centre, casino, retail shops, theatre, public waterfront and restaurants.

The basement level features direct access to the Bayfront MRT station and underground pathways to The Shoppes, hotel and Gardens by the Bay, Mr Doraisamy said.

“Persona non grata notices can be issued by owners of private property, and this is usually a business decision that the courts would respect,” he said.

He added that if an individual chooses to dispute such a prohibition by suing the issuer, the courts can decide if such a measure was wrongful.

While legal experts agreed that it is legal for MBS to impose a property-wide ban, the scope of the ban has sparked discussion.

Associate Professor Mervyn Cheong, deputy director at the Centre for Pro Bono and Clinical Legal Education at the National University of Singapore Law Faculty, said the scope of the ban against Mr MacDonald – which includes the shopping mall and the convention centre – could be perceived to be unreasonable.

“So in a way, the persona non grata notice prohibits Mr MacDonald from even walking through The Shoppes to get to the Bayfront MRT station, or to take a taxi from the car pick-up area,” he said.

Pointing to exclusion orders here – which can be issued against problem gamblers to prohibit them from entering the casinos – Prof Cheong said that while such orders are common, they typically do not prohibit entry to the wider integrated resort premises.

“Ultimately, a property owner has the right to exclude people, whom the owner considers to be undesirable or unwelcomed, from the property. It will be difficult for an individual to identify a specific right that guarantees him access to the premises,” said Prof Cheong.

As to whether the recent persona non grata notice imposed by MBS may lead to more property owners imposing such bans, Professor Tan Cheng Han, chief strategy officer of NUS Law Faculty and president of the Asian Law Schools Association, said this would be unlikely.

Prof Tan said mall operators will be constrained by public criticism, pointing out for instance that an establishment could face reputational harm if it banned a food reviewer because of a bad review.

“In practical terms, the prospect of bad publicity and reputational damage means that such notices will be used sparingly,” he said.

MBS bans ex-top executive, now working for RWS, from premises for alleged poaching of high rollers

Resorts World Sentosa (RWS) chief casino officer Andrew MacDonald and another RWS executive have been banned from the premises of Marina Bay Sands (MBS) for reportedly trying to poach high rollers, in what industry experts see as an unprecedented move.

Both executives, who were previously employees of MBS, were issued persona non grata notices, which prohibit them from “entering or remaining on any part of Marina Bay Sands integrated resort premises, including but not limited to the hotel, mall, convention centre and casino”.

Mr MacDonald, a veteran casino executive who had been with MBS for nearly 12 years, shared the notice on his LinkedIn account on Aug 18.

The notice, which was issued on July 31, said the ban against him will remain in force until further notice, and Marina Bay Sands Pte Ltd reserves the right to take legal action against him should he attempt to enter or remain in any part of the MBS premises.

RWS assistant vice-president of business development Louise Ng, a former casino employee at MBS, was also issued a persona non grata notice that took effect on July 31. She declined to comment.

Mr MacDonald, who has been in the casino industry for more than 40 years, was appointed executive vice-president of casino operations at MBS in 2010. He became chief casino officer for Las Vegas Sands Corp (LVS) in 2012, overseeing gaming operations across all LVS properties. LVS is the parent company of MBS.

The 64-year-old left MBS in July 2021, and joined RWS in September 2022 as chief casino officer after a non-compete clause in his separation agreement expired.

According to Inside Asian Gaming and other reports, the persona non grata notice was issued due to alleged concerns that Mr MacDonald might have been attempting to poach MBS customers and staff during several visits to the property in July.

In response to queries from The Straits Times, he denied the allegations, saying his visits were purely social in nature.

ST understands that he visited MBS on several occasions in July because a close friend, former Crown Melbourne executive Mike Sugrue, was in Singapore.

The Crown Melbourne is an integrated resort in the Australian city.

Mr MacDonald had spoken with two high rollers during two visits, but said he did not initiate those chats. He added that on one occasion, a local high roller initiated a quick, friendly chat with him during a meal with Mr Sugrue.

Mr MacDonald also acknowledged that he visited MBS on July 22 to dine at Tong Dim Noodle Bar, which is located within the casino.

He again visited the casino on July 26 following the release of LVS’ second-quarter 2024 financial results, which he said was a routine practice to stay abreast of gaming offerings.

An MBS spokesperson, when asked why the notices were issued against Mr MacDonald and Ms Ng, said: “Restricting anyone from our premises is not a decision that we take lightly. We have robust protocols to assess the merits of such action. The factors behind a decision of this nature are confidential.”

RWS did not respond when approached for comment.

In response to queries, a spokesperson for the Gambling Regulatory Authority said the imposition of persona non grata notices is a business decision imposed by the casino operators and referred ST to MBS.

Veteran lawyer Salem Ibrahim, who is acting for Mr MacDonald, noted that the notice against his client was issued to cover the whole of the MBS integrated resort, which includes the casino, restaurants, shopping mall, theatre and ArtScience Museum.

“It is unprecedented because Marina Bay Sands integrated resort is a quasi-public place. The integrated resort has inter-connectivity to public infrastructure like the MRT and Gardens by the Bay. It was intended to be the nation’s civic core,” Mr Salem said.

“Public access is axiomatic,” he added. “My client’s position is he has not been guilty of any bad conduct or behaviour that has breached the equivalent of public disorder.”

RWS operator Genting Singapore’s market share of the VIP gaming sector is about 48 per cent to 49 per cent, compared with MBS’ 51 per cent to 52 per cent, UOB Kay Hian Securities investment analyst Jack Goh said.

Source: Straits Times © SPH Media Limited. Permission required for reproduction.

Trial of former transport minister Iswaran postponed to Sept 24 Historical benchmark should be used to calculate losses owed by True Group’s ex-CEO: High Court