Catania review court overturns seizure order in alleged illegal betting case
Regulation2 min read
The Catania review court overturned the order validating the seizure of goods from a shop in Acireale investigated over alleged illegal betting collection. It sent the records to prosecutors for the immediate return of the seized property. The ruling concerned the seizure and was not a final decision on the allegations.
The Catania review court has annulled the decree validating an evidential seizure issued in an investigation into an alleged illegal betting collection point in Acireale. The judge ordered the case records to be sent to prosecutors so that the goods seized from the business, a stationery shop in the town, could be returned immediately.
The operation followed the discovery of computers, betting receipts, handwritten notes and schedules. Investigators had initially suspected clandestine acceptance of bets and payment of winnings.
At the review hearing, the defence was led by lawyer Davide Giuseppe Giugno, with technical advice from Salvatore Vullo of KOGEM. The defence argued that the mere presence of paper material and an Internet Point area was not sufficient proof of unlawful intermediation or abusive management of bets.
The appeal rested on the separation between the activity permitted to a PVR (Punto Vendita Ricariche, or top-up point) and the conduct penalised under article 4 of Law 401/1989 and article 88 of the TULPS. Kogem said the defence pointed out that receipts and bets were attributable solely to users' personal gaming accounts, not to a master account run by the suspect. According to the same account, winnings were credited directly to account holders' online accounts through the official licensee, with no cash payment at the counter. It added that top-ups were mainly electronic and traceable. It also said the Internet Point computers were provided for ordinary browsing and not to influence or intermediate bets.
Case law in the sector distinguishes auxiliary, lawful PVR activity from abusive intermediation, which arises only when the operator intervenes directly by providing its own funds, collecting stakes or paying winnings at the counter. Kogem said the ruling concerns the evidential seizure and is not a final judgment on the merits of the accusation.