Online Casinos in general: Charge of unauthorized gambling ( 285 StGB) (Page 99)

This post has been translated automatically

This post has been translated automatically

This post has been translated automatically

btssultan wrote on 15.03.2025 at 01:56: God, what p**ses me off about this topic - proceedings for illegal gambling. Money-making and nothing more!

As if most people who gamble don't already have enough on their cheeks due to what we call their addiction, no, the state is really trying to take everything from you.

I'd like to see where all the complaints and money collections against the providers are in such proceedings, but that's not of interest because it's not part of the subject of the trial and no attention is paid to it.

The main thing is that the state tries to obtain money that does not legally belong to it.

I still wonder today where the public prosecutor's office is supposed to stand on illegal gambling. The money used to gamble is usually legally acquired, the providers have a license valid in the EU (if played there) and are subject to the Money Laundering Act, so I wonder where the attitude that money has been acquired illegally comes from here.

This post has been translated automatically

btssultan wrote on 15.03.2025 01:56:

I still wonder today where the public prosecutor's point of view for illegal gambling is supposed to be here. The money being played with is usually legally acquired, the providers have a license valid in the EU (if played there) and are subject to the Money Laundering Act, so I wonder where the attitude comes from here that money has been acquired illegally.

btssultan wrote on 03/15/2025 01:56:

The main thing is that the state is trying to obtain money that does not legally belong to it.

This post has been translated automatically

This post has been translated automatically

WithoutWings wrote on 15.03.2025 at 18:47: Maybe for those who are interested, the text that my lawyer wrote, after which the hiring took place directly.


After a detailed evaluation of the investigation file, there is no sufficient suspicion against my client according to § 170 para. 1 StPO. As an objective authority, the public prosecutor's office is obliged to carefully examine the entire contents of the file as part of the investigation procedure and to consider whether the available and expected evidence is likely to provide a convincing judicial basis for the existence of both the objective and subjective elements of the relevant criminal laws.1 In the present case, the "preliminary assessment of the offense "2 to be carried out by the public prosecutor's office in a manner neutral to the offender and the offense concludes that there is insufficient probability of a conviction of my client, taking into account the prognosis of evidence to be made3 . It is therefore in the interests of justice and the protection of my client's fundamental rights that the proceedings be discontinued. There should be no further delay in order to avoid unnecessary damage to my client and to protect his reputation. My client has never appeared in criminal proceedings before and is exercising his constitutional right not to make any statements on the matter.11:14 a.m. The proceedings are based on a suspicious activity report submitted by my client's bank to the Central Office for Financial Transaction Investigations and forwarded to the Hamburg State Criminal Police Office.4 The account held by my client is alleged to have been used for transactions with gambling providers and Online Casinos that are not on the whitelist of the gambling supervisory authorities of the federal states.5 II. Assessment of the evidence There is no sufficient suspicion of criminal activity on the part of my client. 1. The investigation file only indicates that credits and debits were made from crypto trading platforms and various payment service providers, which are often used to process unlicensed gambling. However, the investigation file is silent on how the payments were made to my client's account. The origin of the funds is unknown11:14 It should also be noted that there is a lack of intent in any case. As part of the State Treaty on Gambling 2021, Section 9 (8) GlüStV 2021 stipulates that the Joint Gambling Authority of the federal states shall publish an official list, the so-called "whitelist", on the Internet. This list contains the names of gambling operators and intermediaries that have a permit or license in accordance with the provisions of the Interstate Gambling Treaty 2021. Pursuant to Section 6e (3) GlüStV 2021, providers on this list are obliged to clearly indicate on the homepage of their website that they are in possession of a state license. The whitelist is not only used to list providers that are subject to supervision by the Joint Gambling Authority of the federal states, but also includes gambling offers that are under the control of other German gambling supervisory authorities. These include, for example, lotteries or casino games in casinos. However, these legal requirements are often opaque for consumers. Very few people are aware that gambling providers must explicitly state on their website that they are in possession of a state license. With regard to "Red Rhino Limited", which was identified in the investigation file, it should be noted in particular that it operated a website in German and - similar to the websites of other online providers - gave consumers the impression that it had the required license. However, it was not apparent to the consumer that the European license shown - a license from the Malta Gaming Authority - was not valid in Germany. On the contrary,11:16 the consumer was led to believe that the license was valid for the whole of Europe and therefore also in Germany. The design of the website aimed to create the impression that the offers were legal in Germany. However, it was not apparent that the highlighted licensing did not apply here. The challenge for the consumer was to recognize that the Provider was not subject to the supervision of the Joint Gaming Authority of the federal states, but instead only used a European license. The consumer had no way of knowing that the online Games of chance offered by Red Rhino Limited were not legal in Germany, nor did he have any reason to question the license and doubt its validity. In particular, it should be borne in mind that a consumer may trust that a company will comply with the laws and regulations applicable to it when it positions itself on the market. There were no signs of suspicion that would have indicated illegality in Germany. The lack of clarity regarding the validity of the license can lead to misunderstandings. This must be taken into account in the present case and cannot be ruled out in any case. With regard to "Gammix Ltd.", which can be found in the investigation file, it must also be taken into account that it still operates a website in German even today, although it no longer participates in the German market. The website advertises that Gammix has a license from the Malta Gaming Authority and that this license gives players the "necessary legal security of a strong European authority" 6 . The website also refers to its worldwide availability. At 11:16, it again refers to the existing EU license, which "provides the necessary legal security for both players and the casino" 7 . The website is thus designed to win the trust of the consumer in terms of legality. It should also be noted that the website repeatedly points out that Gammix specializes in the European market in particular and that the languages supported by the company include, above all, German. The consumer is thus misled by the website; the trust in a legality that also prevails in Germany is almost inevitable. Under these circumstances, it is neither possible nor reasonable for the consumer to become aware of the lack of a license in Germany. For the consumer, there is therefore also the challenge here of recognizing that there is no supervision by the Joint Gaming Authority of the federal states, but instead only a European license is used. Due to the circumstances listed, there is a lack of intentional action on the part of my client. In particular, the licenses displayed on the websites of various online gambling providers and the resulting trust of consumers in valid licenses and the resulting legality speaks against the cheap acceptance of participation in illegal gambling in the absence of any other indications, as in the present case. The websites are aimed precisely at giving the consumer the impression that it is possible to participate in the offered gambling without Risk and legally from Germany. In the absence of intent, there is insufficient probability of a conviction of my client11:17 For the sake of completeness, it is stated that - if the above view is not followed - the assessment of the offense to be carried out by the public prosecutor's office in a neutral manner with regard to the offender and offense will in any case come to the conclusion that, taking into account the prognosis of evidence to be made, it is expedient and appropriate to refrain from prosecution. The proceedings relate to an offense in which the offender's guilt would be considered minor and there is no public interest in prosecution. Participation in illegal gambling under Section 285 StGB only provides for a sentence of up to six months' imprisonment or a fine of up to one hundred and eighty daily rates. The lack of seriousness of the offense, combined with a careful consideration of the evidence and the limited resources of the judiciary, leads to the conclusion that the offender's guilt would be considered minor and that it would be appropriate in this case to discontinue the proceedings on the grounds of insignificance. At the same time, there is also no public interest in prosecution, as the alleged offense has no impact on the general public. There is no public interest in further prosecution for either special or general preventive reasons. At this point, I would also like to inform you that the initiation of preliminary proceedings has already left a lasting impression on my client. My client has never appeared in criminal proceedings. The present investigation proceedings are the first proceedings against him11:17 In view of the above circumstances, there is no reasonable suspicion of a crime against my client. After considering the entire contents of the file, the conviction of my client in this case is neither to be expected nor appropriate. In summary, it can be stated that there is a lack of intent in this case, as the gambling providers give the impression that they are on the whitelist. The consumer was and is not aware of anything else. Furthermore, my client has never had any criminal convictions. On the contrary, he leads a regular life. The investigation proceedings here are causing my client to fear for his livelihood. This is a great burden for him. For the aforementioned reasons, I request that the proceedings be discontinued due to a lack of sufficient suspicion in accordance with Section 170 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Only in the extreme alternative do I request that the proceedings be discontinued in accordance with § 153 StPO. This is appropriate in view of the minor nature of the offense and the limited resources of the judiciary. If, contrary to expectations, the proceedings are not discontinued, I would ask that the reasons to the contrary be recorded in the file. In this case, I am already submitting a request for additional access to the file. This is in the interest of safeguarding my client's constitutional right to be heard. In addition, I request that a reasonable period of time be granted for the submission of a supplementary statement in this case.

This post has been translated automatically

WithoutWings wrote on 15.03.2025 at 18:47: Maybe for those who are interested, the text that my lawyer wrote, after which the hiring took place directly.


After a detailed evaluation of the investigation file, there is no sufficient suspicion against my client according to § 170 para. 1 StPO. As an objective authority, the public prosecutor's office is obliged to carefully examine the entire contents of the file as part of the investigation procedure and to consider whether the available and expected evidence is likely to provide a convincing judicial basis for the existence of both the objective and subjective elements of the relevant criminal laws.1 In the present case, the "preliminary assessment of the offense "2 to be carried out by the public prosecutor's office in a manner neutral to the offender and the offense concludes that there is insufficient probability of a conviction of my client, taking into account the prognosis of evidence to be made3 . It is therefore in the interests of justice and the protection of my client's fundamental rights that the proceedings be discontinued. There should be no further delay in order to avoid unnecessary damage to my client and to protect his reputation. My client has never appeared in criminal proceedings before and is exercising his constitutional right not to make any statements on the matter.11:14 a.m. The proceedings are based on a suspicious activity report submitted by my client's bank to the Central Office for Financial Transaction Investigations and forwarded to the Hamburg State Criminal Police Office.4 The account held by my client is alleged to have been used for transactions with gambling providers and Online Casinos that are not on the whitelist of the gambling supervisory authorities of the federal states.5 II. Assessment of the evidence There is no sufficient suspicion of criminal activity on the part of my client. 1. The investigation file only indicates that credits and debits were made from crypto trading platforms and various payment service providers, which are often used to process unlicensed gambling. However, the investigation file is silent on how the payments were made to my client's account. The origin of the funds is unknown11:14 It should also be noted that there is a lack of intent in any case. As part of the State Treaty on Gambling 2021, Section 9 (8) GlüStV 2021 stipulates that the Joint Gambling Authority of the federal states shall publish an official list, the so-called "whitelist", on the Internet. This list contains the names of gambling operators and intermediaries that have a permit or license in accordance with the provisions of the Interstate Gambling Treaty 2021. Pursuant to Section 6e (3) GlüStV 2021, providers on this list are obliged to clearly indicate on the homepage of their website that they are in possession of a state license. The whitelist is not only used to list providers that are subject to supervision by the Joint Gambling Authority of the federal states, but also includes gambling offers that are under the control of other German gambling supervisory authorities. These include, for example, lotteries or casino games in casinos. However, these legal requirements are often opaque for consumers. Very few people are aware that gambling providers must explicitly state on their website that they are in possession of a state license. With regard to "Red Rhino Limited", which was identified in the investigation file, it should be noted in particular that it operated a website in German and - similar to the websites of other online providers - gave consumers the impression that it had the required license. However, it was not apparent to the consumer that the European license shown - a license from the Malta Gaming Authority - was not valid in Germany. On the contrary,11:16 the consumer was led to believe that the license was valid for the whole of Europe and therefore also in Germany. The design of the website aimed to create the impression that the offers were legal in Germany. However, it was not apparent that the highlighted licensing did not apply here. The challenge for the consumer was to recognize that the Provider was not subject to the supervision of the Joint Gaming Authority of the federal states, but instead only used a European license. The consumer had no way of knowing that the online Games of chance offered by Red Rhino Limited were not legal in Germany, nor did he have any reason to question the license and doubt its validity. In particular, it should be borne in mind that a consumer may trust that a company will comply with the laws and regulations applicable to it when it positions itself on the market. There were no signs of suspicion that would have indicated illegality in Germany. The lack of clarity regarding the validity of the license can lead to misunderstandings. This must be taken into account in the present case and cannot be ruled out in any case. With regard to "Gammix Ltd.", which can be found in the investigation file, it must also be taken into account that it still operates a website in German even today, although it no longer participates in the German market. The website advertises that Gammix has a license from the Malta Gaming Authority and that this license gives players the "necessary legal security of a strong European authority" 6 . The website also refers to its worldwide availability. At 11:16, it again refers to the existing EU license, which "provides the necessary legal security for both players and the casino" 7 . The website is thus designed to win the trust of the consumer in terms of legality. It should also be noted that the website repeatedly points out that Gammix specializes in the European market in particular and that the languages supported by the company include, above all, German. The consumer is thus misled by the website; the trust in a legality that also prevails in Germany is almost inevitable. Under these circumstances, it is neither possible nor reasonable for the consumer to become aware of the lack of a license in Germany. For the consumer, there is therefore also the challenge here of recognizing that there is no supervision by the Joint Gaming Authority of the federal states, but instead only a European license is used. Due to the circumstances listed, there is a lack of intentional action on the part of my client. In particular, the licenses displayed on the websites of various online gambling providers and the resulting consumer confidence in valid licenses and the resulting legality speaks against the cheap acceptance of participation in illegal gambling in the absence of any other indications, as in the present case. The websites are aimed precisely at giving the consumer the impression that it is possible to participate in the offered gambling without Risk and legally from Germany. In the absence of intent, there is insufficient probability of a conviction of my client11:17 For the sake of completeness, it is stated that - if the above view is not followed - the assessment of the offense to be carried out by the public prosecutor's office in a manner neutral to the offender and the offense will in any case come to the conclusion that, taking into account the prognosis of evidence to be made, it is expedient and appropriate to refrain from prosecution. The proceedings relate to an offense in which the offender's guilt would be considered minor and there is no public interest in prosecution. Participation in illegal gambling under Section 285 StGB only provides for a sentence of up to six months' imprisonment or a fine of up to one hundred and eighty daily rates. The lack of seriousness of the offense, combined with a careful consideration of the evidence and the limited resources of the judiciary, leads to the conclusion that the offender's guilt would be considered minor and that it would be appropriate in this case to discontinue the proceedings on the grounds of insignificance. At the same time, there is also no public interest in prosecution, as the alleged offense has no impact on the general public. There is no public interest in further prosecution for either special or general preventive reasons. At this point, I would also like to inform you that the initiation of preliminary proceedings has already left a lasting impression on my client. My client has never appeared in criminal proceedings. The present investigation proceedings are the first proceedings against him11:17 In view of the above circumstances, there is no reasonable suspicion of a crime against my client. After considering the entire contents of the file, the conviction of my client in this case is neither to be expected nor appropriate. In summary, it can be stated that there is a lack of intent in this case, as the gambling providers give the impression that they are on the whitelist. The consumer was and is not aware of anything else. Furthermore, my client has never had any criminal convictions. On the contrary, he leads a regular life. The investigation proceedings here are causing my client to fear for his livelihood. This is a great burden for him. For the aforementioned reasons, I request that the proceedings be discontinued due to a lack of sufficient suspicion in accordance with Section 170 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Only in the extreme alternative do I request that the proceedings be discontinued in accordance with § 153 StPO. This is appropriate in view of the minor nature of the offense and the limited resources of the judiciary. If, contrary to expectations, the proceedings are not discontinued, I request that the reasons to the contrary be recorded in the file. In this case, I am already submitting a request for additional access to the file. This is in the interest of safeguarding my client's constitutional right to be heard. In addition, I request that a reasonable period of time be granted for the submission of a supplementary statement in this case.

This post has been translated automatically

This post has been translated automatically

This post has been translated automatically