ES
IT
PT
DE
NL
Brazil’s Supreme Federal Court (STF) has suspended a case concerning the criminalisation of traditional gambling after Justice Flávio Dino requested more time to consider how its ruling should address Brazil’s regulated betting framework.
The case concerns Article 50 of Brazil’s Criminal Contraventions Law, which establishes penalties for operating or exploiting unauthorised games of chance. The provision covers activities including the illegal numbers game known as jogo do bicho, bingo and slot machines.
The appeal arose in Rio Grande do Sul, where a state appeals panel had found that operating a game of chance should no longer be treated as a criminal contravention.
The panel held that the assumptions behind the 1941 prohibition conflicted with constitutional principles including free enterprise and individual liberty. The state Public Prosecutor’s Office appealed, and the STF accepted the case as one of general repercussion, meaning its eventual ruling will guide similar cases nationwide.
Justice Luiz Fux, the rapporteur, voted to uphold the constitutionality of Article 50.
However, Dino said he agreed that the prohibition on unauthorised traditional gambling remains valid, but argued that the Court should not define the scope of its ruling without considering the legal treatment of regulated online betting.
Dino’s concern was that an STF ruling dealing only with the 1941 ban could create legal inconsistency if it did not account for gambling activities Congress has subsequently permitted and regulated separately.
He therefore requested a pedido de vista, which gives a justice additional time to examine the case. The request halted the hearing before a final ruling could be issued, and no resumption date has been announced.
Dino said the Court could not “treat jogo do bicho rigorously” while ignoring “this dragon that is the pernicious world of bets”, according to Brazilian media reports.
Justice Dias Toffoli supported examining the broader social effects of betting. He said the Court was confronting a new and difficult environment, rather than the gambling market that existed when the 1940s legislation was introduced.
The debate could bring the legal treatment of traditional gambling and Brazil’s regulated online betting market into the same constitutional discussion. However it does not mean that the Court has ordered a single combined hearing or reached a view on the merits of the betting law challenges.
The STF is not currently deciding whether all betting should be prohibited or whether the federal betting framework is constitutional. The immediate case asks whether Article 50 may continue to criminalise games of chance that do not have specific legal authorisation. Separate challenges to the betting regime remain pending.
