Brazil government pressed to explain how betting ban will not favour crime

A Poder360 opinion article by Rodrigo Marinho, argues that the Brazilian government must explain how banning fixed-odds betting will not push consumers towards clandestine platforms. The article cites an operation launched on 13 October 2026 by the São Paulo Civil Police against clandestine betting platforms, with investigations pointing to a scheme suspected of moving millions of reais, defrauding consumers and laundering money for criminal organisations.

According to the article, the government's ban on fixed-odds betting, linked to Medida Provisória 1.394, immediately affected companies authorised by the state less than two years ago. Those companies paid concessions, received a five-year operating right, took on regulatory obligations and began complying with rules on user identification, money-laundering prevention and consumer protection, the article says.

The article states that the São Paulo investigation found consumers had been harmed by platforms that did not honour payments, and that funds moved through structures suspected of concealing their origin. The scheme was already operating before the provisional measure, the article says, and it argues that announcing the blocking of thousands of sites is not sufficient because addresses can be changed, platforms can move to foreign servers and transactions can pass through intermediaries.

The article says Senacon, the National Consumer Secretariat, has a central role and must explain how it will treat consumers harmed by clandestine platforms, which instruments it will use to identify those responsible and how it will recover amounts improperly withheld. It adds that the government should present verifiable indicators on fraud, complaints and reimbursements, and that Congress should require the executive to assess these risks when examining the conversion of MP 1.394 into law.

The article also says that combating gambling addiction, household indebtedness and abusive advertising is legitimate, but that this does not remove the need to assess the consequences of a broad prohibition. It states that public policies should be judged by their concrete effects rather than announced intentions, and that the government, having removed companies it could supervise from the market, bears the burden of proving it is not opening space for operators that never followed its rules.