Correct, it is the predecessor. The law was reformed in 2017 and was therefore a different law. Also, the guy here has had a positive record. Mrtorero didn't. The total incoming and outgoing payments were also taken into account - not here.
Correct, the law reform ensures that valuables can also be confiscated.
And due to the tightening up, the balance sheet no longer plays a role 🤦
Public prosecutor's office wants compensation for lost value.
24th Mar. 2025, at 12:56 pm CET#168
0 Likes
Nobody has liked this post so far
frapi07 wrote on March 24th, 2025 at 12:51 pm:
Exactly. They are still two different laws, which is precisely why mrtorero had a hard time finding a lawyer for it.
It is the same law, it was simply "reformed" and the confiscation was simplified and extended e.g. to valuables (if I have interpreted this correctly).
@Druff The difference in the case is quite simply that the man in the case was convicted because it was proven that he had engaged in illegal gambling and he was therefore given consequences by the court. In other words, the court decided that he was guilty. This was the only reason why he was punished and had to hand over the win he made from this offense.
What is new about the law and discussed in this thread is the so-called "independent confiscation". This states that no conviction is required to confiscate money or valuables. Previously, you had peace of mind if you were not explicitly convicted as guilty.
This meant that if, for example, the offense was time-barred after three years, there was not enough evidence for a conviction or the proceedings were dropped due to a lack of public interest (or minor guilt), nothing could happen to you in the past. Since the reform, however, the public prosecutor's office can (or must) now say in such cases: there is no conviction for which you will be fined, but we will still collect the win if it obviously comes from illegal gambling.
That's how it was with mtorero: the court says that there was no intent, nobody suffered any direct damage and there is no long-term damage (or whatever), so the case is dropped and there is no punishment for him. The public prosecutor's office says: Okay, but the bank statement clearly shows that he received tens of thousands of euros from a casino without a license, so he has to hand them in, even if he doesn't get an (additional) fine.
That's why the case here is not comparable, because confiscation after a conviction has actually always existed. However, the fact that the win is also confiscated without a conviction or after the proceedings have been discontinued is new.
Public prosecutor's office wants compensation for lost value.
24th Mar. 2025, at 06:49 pm CET#170
0 Likes
Nobody has liked this post so far
nevertheless, this issue is and remains more than absurd. For 99% of players, there is nothing left to confiscate because the money has ended up back in the casino. So there was no enrichment whatsoever and such a confiscation would lead (at the latest) every player to personal insolvency because money is confiscated that is not even there. Instead, the public prosecutor's office should finally take action against illegal casino providers and their managers. Oh no...they collect hundreds of millions of taxpayers' money...and tolerate this illegal gambling, while they condemn the small player for it.
This state is more than ridiculous.
Public prosecutor's office wants compensation for lost value.
Liked this post:
frapi07
Correct, the law reform ensures that valuables can also be confiscated.
And due to the tightening up, the balance sheet no longer plays a role 🤦
This post has been translated automatically
Public prosecutor's office wants compensation for lost value.
Nobody has liked this post so far
Exactly. But they are still two different laws, which is precisely why mrtorero had a hard time finding a lawyer for it.
This post has been translated automatically
Public prosecutor's office wants compensation for lost value.
Nobody has liked this post so far
It is the same law, it was simply "reformed" and the confiscation was simplified and extended e.g. to valuables (if I have interpreted this correctly).
This post has been translated automatically
Public prosecutor's office wants compensation for lost value.
Liked this post:
frapi07
What is new about the law and discussed in this thread is the so-called "independent confiscation". This states that no conviction is required to confiscate money or valuables. Previously, you had peace of mind if you were not explicitly convicted as guilty.
This meant that if, for example, the offense was time-barred after three years, there was not enough evidence for a conviction or the proceedings were dropped due to a lack of public interest (or minor guilt), nothing could happen to you in the past. Since the reform, however, the public prosecutor's office can (or must) now say in such cases: there is no conviction for which you will be fined, but we will still collect the win if it obviously comes from illegal gambling.
That's how it was with mtorero: the court says that there was no intent, nobody suffered any direct damage and there is no long-term damage (or whatever), so the case is dropped and there is no punishment for him. The public prosecutor's office says: Okay, but the bank statement clearly shows that he received tens of thousands of euros from a casino without a license, so he has to hand them in, even if he doesn't get an (additional) fine.
That's why the case here is not comparable, because confiscation after a conviction has actually always existed. However, the fact that the win is also confiscated without a conviction or after the proceedings have been discontinued is new.
This post has been translated automatically
Public prosecutor's office wants compensation for lost value.
Nobody has liked this post so far
This state is more than ridiculous.
This post has been translated automatically