TJSC suspends Ana Gaming account freeze in Brazil
Regulation2 min read
In brief
- TJSC's Fourth Civil Law Chamber suspended a precautionary freeze on Ana Gaming Brasil bank accounts.
- The judge found no demonstrated concrete risk of concealment or diversion of assets.
- Provisional Measure 1,394/2026 does not by itself authorise freezing operators' funds, the decision said.
- The appeal's merits remain pending before the chamber.
The Fourth Civil Law Chamber of the Santa Catarina Court of Justice (TJSC) has suspended a precautionary freeze on funds in the bank accounts of Ana Gaming Brasil S.A., which operates the 7K, Vera.bet and Cassino.bet platforms. Judge Leandro Passig Mendes issued the decision in appeal 5103470-11.2026.8.24.0000, according to the decision. The merits of the appeal remain pending before the chamber.
The case was brought by Gleicinara Vanessa Nicoli de Andrade before the 1st Civil Court of Blumenau. The bettor alleges a gambling disorder and seeks compensation from the operators. The first-instance court initially denied the freeze, then reversed its position on clarification motions and ordered the blocking of funds at six operators, basing that order solely on the issuance of Provisional Measure 1,394/2026. Ana Gaming was represented by lawyers Udo Seckelmann, Thiago Stüssi and Beatriz Braz, of Bichara e Motta Advogados.
In granting suspensive effect to the appeal, Passig Mendes said a freeze sought before the defendant is summoned is an exceptional measure. It requires proof of a concrete risk that assets will be concealed, dissipated or diverted, a requirement the decision found was not demonstrated in relation to Ana Gaming. The judge also said the force of Provisional Measure 1,394/2026 is neither a requirement nor an autonomous basis for a freeze. The measure itself obliges operators to ensure liquidity for the full restitution of amounts owed to bettors, keeping those funds segregated under penalty of a daily fine, and preserves companies' liability for obligations from the period in which they were authorised to operate, without ordering their dissolution, according to the decision.
The decision also cited the absence in the case file of a formal gambling-disorder report, of prior notice of the clinical condition to the operator, and of any request for limitation, suspension or self-exclusion that had gone unanswered. The judge noted that self-exclusion does not have retroactive effect on earlier bets. He also said the frozen amount was set only on the basis of the initial petition, without comparison with bank statements, and that resolving the matter requires adversarial proceedings and evidence.