ES
IT
PT
DE
NL
Chile’s state lottery, Polla Chilena de Beneficencia, has filed a criminal complaint against online betting operators, alleging unauthorised gambling, money laundering and unlawful association.
Santiago’s Fourth Guarantee Court accepted the filing on 21 August. Chile’s Public Prosecutor’s Office will assess the allegations and determine whether to take further investigative steps or bring charges against any individuals or companies.
Polla alleges that the platforms have actively targeted the Chilean market rather than merely being offshore websites accessible to local consumers. It cited Chilean customer registration, locally available deposit and withdrawal options, local promotions, advertising and sports sponsorships.
The lottery requested an investigation into the origin, movement and destination of funds linked to the operations, including banking information, transaction records, accounts and ultimate beneficial ownership. It also requested information from payment providers and a review of corporate records, as well as agreements with technology and payment-processing suppliers.
Polla said the requested enquiries could establish whether proceeds from alleged unlawful gambling had been concealed or disguised, potentially constituting money laundering. It also called for an investigation into whether a structured organisation with continuing roles and responsibilities had been established to facilitate the alleged offences.
The complaint follows a series of legal actions against unauthorised online gambling in Chile. In September 2023, the Supreme Court upheld an action brought by Polla and ordered an internet provider to block access to the betting websites named in that proceeding.
In a separate case brought by Lotería de Concepción, the Supreme Court on 29 September 2025 ordered six respondent internet providers to block the betting sites identified in the claim. The court said the providers could not “transmit or promote games of chance” unless the operators showed legal and administrative authorisation, and were required to “immediately block” the websites requested by the claimant.
The order directly applied to the providers and sites involved in that case. The Supreme Court subsequently gave the providers five days to implement the blocks, with the companies required to report their compliance methods to the court.
