An impossible judgment failed with a bang on appeal

[IndexP]

One or the other may still remember...gameflo had mentioned the situation in his post from May 12.05.2015th, XNUMX:
http://www.playtime-forum.info/forum...full=1#post268

...as you have probably already learned from the media, a German casino player was recently sentenced to a fine in a case before the Munich District Court for participating in public gambling at an online gambling provider with an EU license (not yet legally) with simultaneous confiscation of his profits. In our opinion, such a ruling is in clear contradiction to the European principle that goods and services offered within the EU can be used freely by every EU citizen at their own discretion. We therefore assume that this procedure will be continued in higher courts...

The press release from the district court in Munich at the time can be read here, for example:
https://www.justiz.bayern.de/imperia...1___150102.pdf

January 02, 2015 - Press release 01/15 Internet blackjack does not bring luck

Anyone who has an Internet provider who does not have one in Germany
Approval, playing blackjack, commits an offence.

---

According to 285 StGB, anyone who takes part in a public game of chance (§ 284 StGB) is liable to prosecution.
A 25-year-old master painter from Munich played blackjack via an Internet provider. The provider belongs to a holding company based in Gibraltar and does not have a license to organize games of chance in Germany. The provider's terms and conditions, which one must accept before being allowed to play, indicate that internet gambling is illegal in some countries and the player must check which laws apply to them.
The master painter from Munich took part in the Black Jack game of chance via the Internet. The internet provider's financial service provider transferred a total of 13.7.11 euros to his private account between 26.8.11 and 201.500.
The master painter paid 1.3.11 euros from his private account to the financial service provider in the period from 31.10.11/65.030/1.3.11 to 31.12.11/55.900/XNUMX and another XNUMX euros from his business account in the period from XNUMX most to XNUMX most.
When and how often he took part in the games in Gibraltar could not be determined.
The master painter defended himself in court, saying that he had assumed that gambling on the Internet was allowed, since Boris Becker, FC Bayern Munich and other celebrities, among others, advertised it on a large scale. In addition, the ban on gambling on the Internet violates higher-ranking law.
The master painter was sentenced to a fine of 2.100 euros by the Munich district court for participating in illegal gambling. He will not get back 63.490 euros that were confiscated from him and that he won while gambling. They are confiscated by the state.
In his ruling, the responsible judge states that Black Jack is a game of chance for which the organizer requires official permission. Gambling on the Internet is made available to an unlimited number of people and is therefore public. The provider did not have the required German official approval. According to the court's conviction, the master painter acted with conditional intent because he had to read the relevant information in the provider's terms of use. He should have made appropriate inquiries as to whether gambling was permitted for him. It is known to the court that under the heading “Gambling” on the Internet under the search engine “Google” alone, the first four articles deal with the criminal liability of gambling on the Internet, although it is mentioned in any case that that, at least formally, participation in Internet casinos involving gambling is a punishable offence. If the master painter is informed of possible criminal liability in the terms of use, if this criminal liability is made clear through the simplest research on the Internet and if he still takes part in gambling while ignoring these circumstances, this shows his attitude He doesn't care about the possible criminal liability and consciously pushes this aside because participating in gambling seems more important to him.
The court goes on to say that the master painter cannot claim that celebrities advertise gambling on the Internet. It was exclusively about sports betting. Even the legal layman knows the difference between a sports bet and a game of chance such as Black Jack.
The court finds that the Internet gambling ban in Germany does not violate European law. The European Court of Justice has ruled that, in the specific area of ​​gambling, the public authorities have sufficient discretion in determining the requirements arising from the protection of consumers and the social order and that it is a matter of It is up to each member state to assess whether it is necessary to ban all or part of gambling and betting activities, or whether it is sufficient to restrict and control them. The European Court of Justice has also ruled that restrictions are justified on overriding grounds of public interest. The District Court of Munich determined that gambling on the Internet poses a significant risk to individual players. The state legislatures have exercised their discretion in Article 4 of the State Treaty on Gambling and have established a restriction on betting on games of chance.
Judgment of the District Court of Munich dated September 26.9.14, 1115, 254 Cs 176411 Js 13/XNUMX

By the way, not much more was known about this case.
In addition, only the (unconfirmed) rumor circulated in forums that the online casino provider is said to have been "bwin".

In any case, the convicted master painter appealed - and his impossible district court judgment was overturned by the Munich district court.
The new/current state of knowledge can be read here:
http://www.lto.de/recht/nachrichten/...line-internet/

German criminal law not applicable to online gambling

Last year a master painter from Munich was fined for playing blackjack online. The judgment has now been overturned. The LG Munich I decided that German criminal law is not applicable.

A master painter from Munich will probably be allowed to keep his winnings from online gambling after all. That District Court (LG) Munich I quashed his conviction of involvement in illicit gambling. However, the judgment is not yet legally binding. The district court (AG) Munich had the man last year to a fined 2.100 euros and withheld his winnings of 63.490 euros.
The 26-year-old had more than 2011 in several blackjack games at a Gibraltar-based and licensed gambling operator in XNUMX Paid 120.000 euros in stakes and received more than 190.000 euros in winnings. The AG was of the opinion that blackjack was a game of chance for which the organizer required official permission. However, the provider did not have a German permit. In any case, the district court found that the participation in such a game of chance could be punishable by law.
In the turmoil surrounding the legality of online gambling, the regional court has now decided that German criminal law is not applicable to the case. This saves the regional court from having to give a comprehensive reasoning for its judgment on European law, explains the Munich gaming lawyer Claus Hambach: "Even in accordance with the current chaotic regulatory situation in the gaming sector, the first-instance judgment would have especially taking into account the case law of the ECJ, must not last." The ECJ ruled in February that the Brokerage of bets to a betting operator licensed abroad must not be penalized.
Whether the public prosecutor's office wants to appeal the verdict is not yet clear. Should she renounce it, the master painter gets his winnings back.

[CBJVikings]

Good news; had only casually followed the case on ISA Casinos. However, the verdict in the first instance was still valid.