Online Casinos in general: Charge of unauthorized gambling ( 285 StGB) (Page 87)

WithoutWings wrote on January 15th, 2025 at 11:37 am:

I have only had paid in and out through it has made no difference to me

This post has been translated automatically

WithoutWings wrote on January 15th, 2025 at 11:37 am:

I have only had paid in and out through it has made no difference to me

This post has been translated automatically

This post has been translated automatically

Smiley16 wrote on 15.01.2025 at 15:03: Here in the thread, most people didn't go or didn't cancel. In principle, the letter says that if you don't show up or cancel, you assume that you don't want to give any information about it and the case will then be handed over to the responsible prosecution authority. Does that mean the public prosecutor's office?

This post has been translated automatically

Smiley16 wrote on 15.01.2025 at 15:03: Here in the thread, most people didn't go or didn't cancel. In principle, the letter says that if you don't show up or cancel, you assume that you don't want to give any information about it and the case will then be handed over to the responsible prosecution authority. That is the public prosecutor's office, isn't it?

This post has been translated automatically

Gerdi wrote on 15.01.2025 at 13:09:

Didn't you once write that the bank statement said "trustly/gammix"? Then the origin would be quite clear with gammix?

This post has been translated automatically

WithoutWings wrote on 16.01.2025 at 07:36:

Inpay and other payment providers en masse, among others. I've had up to 10 transactions a day and usually never the same casinos. You can imagine how long a year's bank statement would have been 😅

This post has been translated automatically

This post has been translated automatically

Gerdi wrote on 16.01.2025 at 09:02:

Indeed. Honestly doesn't sound very healthy either, so honestly: I hope you're doing well and you have yourself under control

In any case, interesting (and not necessarily reassuring) that apparently even those payments are being tracked where no name of a casino or Provider appears on the transfer. Proving that it is actually a payout from a casino is likely to be much more difficult than if there is clearly a name.

Why were the proceedings discontinued in your case? According to §170, i.e. lack of suspicion, or according to §153, i.e. lack of public interest?
This could be of interest if the public prosecutor's office wants to confiscate the wins after all, as in the case of the other colleague, because as I understand it, if the case is dismissed under §153, it is assumed that the person is guilty but no punishment is imposed because it is the first time or no one has really been harmed. In this case, however, the confiscation of payments can be ordered for up to 30 years, even though the proceedings themselves have been discontinued and the "perpetrator" has not been punished.
If, on the other hand, proceedings are discontinued under Section 170, it is not at all certain whether an offense has actually been committed and the proceedings are therefore discontinued - in this case, it would be much more difficult to justify confiscation of the proceeds (wins), as I understand it.


Could someone with legal knowledge evaluate this?

This post has been translated automatically

Theodor wrote on January 16th, 2025 at 11:11 am:

Because of your query regarding Inpay etc. You have to explain to the bank where these incoming payments come from. If you cannot explain this, a report for money laundering will be issued and then you will have to disclose it to the public prosecutor's office at the latest, otherwise, as I said, money laundering will be assumed.

This post has been translated automatically