Tuscany administrative court upholds betting and VLT licence revocations in Prato
Enforcement & compliance2 min read
Tuscany’s regional administrative court rejected a company’s appeal and upheld the revocation of its public-security authorisations for betting and VLT operations in Prato. The revocations followed an anti-mafia prohibition issued by the Prato Prefecture in March 2022; the court said the evidence indicated a current risk of organised-crime influence over the company.
Tuscany's regional administrative court (Tar Toscana) has confirmed the revocation of licences for betting and video lottery (VLT) gaming at a business linked to a company subject to an anti-mafia prohibition issued by the Prato Prefecture. The court rejected the appeal against the Questura's measures on the merits and found the revocation of the public-security authorisations lawful.
The company had acquired a business unit of a dedicated gaming hall in February 2016, and the hall was already authorised for VLT and slot activity. The betting licence was issued in May 2017. In March 2022, after the Prato Prefecture issued the anti-mafia prohibition, the Questore ordered the revocation of the authorisations and the end of the activities.
The measure rested on checks by the inter-force group and on material from an investigation by the Florence anti-mafia district directorate. According to the ruling, a man considered the de facto manager of the business had been sent to trial for mafia association. The same man and the company's owner had also been sent to trial over the running of a brothel. According to the information note, illicit proceeds at the disposal of the mafia group were reinvested in that brothel.
The court noted that an anti-mafia prohibition is precautionary and preventive in nature and requires not proof of a fact but a series of indications. The court said its purpose is not to establish criminal liability. It added that the risk of mafia infiltration must be assessed against a standard of "more likely than not". In this case, the checks led to the view that the company was exposed to a concrete and current risk of conditioning by organised crime.
On the revocation itself, the court cited articles 10 and 11 of the Tulps, which govern withdrawal of police authorisations in cases of abuse or when the required conditions no longer hold. The Questura had considered the required personal requirements compromised, in particular good conduct, together with the relationship of trust between the licence holder and the authorising authority. The court said this assessment showed no manifest illogicality or unreasonableness. It also cited Council of State case law under which revoking commercial authorisations is an obligatory act for the administration when an anti-mafia prohibition is in place.
The judges rejected the argument that the revocation was unlawful because it relied on facts predating the issue of the licences. The ruling states that the investigation records were classified when the authorisations were issued, so the administration could not have used them in deciding on the applications. The appeal was therefore rejected.