Betting agency managers cannot simply accept payments from customers without questioning the source of the money, especially when obvious anomalies emerge.
The Court of Cassation reiterated this, upholding the two-month prison sentence for reckless purchases against two owners of a betting shop in Campania. They were found responsible for failing to carry out the necessary checks on the origin of large sums received to settle gambling debts.
The case, reported by Agipronews, dates back to 2015. A regular customer of the agency had accumulated betting debts of over 87 euros, which he repaid over the course of about four months through a series of bank transfers.
The transfers, however, did not originate from the player's personal account, but from the accounts of a financial intermediary where the man worked. It later emerged that the funds were the result of misappropriation, carried out by the employee through the misuse of company banking credentials.
In the first instance, the Avellino Court held that the managers had knowingly accepted the risk of the illicit origin of the money, convicting them of receiving stolen goods, at least on the basis of eventual intent.
However, in a 2025 ruling, the Naples Court of Appeals rejected evidence of intent, stating that awareness of the criminal origin of the funds had not been demonstrated. While confirming the reconstruction of the facts, the judges reclassified the conduct as an unwary purchase (Article 712 of the Criminal Code), finding fault due to failure to verify the facts and reducing the sentence.
The two defendants appealed this decision to the Supreme Court of Cassation, arguing that the money was not of "suspicious origin," that it was the payment of a real and legal gambling debt, and that the customer was a known person and considered trustworthy.
The Supreme Court, however, rejected the appeal in its entirety, deeming it unfounded.
According to the Supreme Court, the crime of unwary purchase requires neither certainty of the criminal origin of the goods nor proof of actual subjective suspicion on the part of the perpetrator. It is sufficient that the receipt occurs in the presence of objective circumstances that "should arouse suspicion."
In this specific case – as stated in the ruling cited by Agipronews – these circumstances were multiple: the generic and repetitive reasons for the transfers, the origin of the money from a joint-stock company unrelated to the gambling relationship, the particularly high total amount, the requests for clarification made by the bank, and the vague and contradictory explanations provided by the customer.
Elements which, according to the Court, would have required further investigations, without being able to settle for verbal reassurances.
Finally, the Court of Cassation emphasizes a crucial aspect: the defendants were not private individuals, but professional operators in the legal betting and gaming sector. As entrepreneurs, they were required to exercise a higher-than-average level of diligence and could not have ignored the anomaly of such significant financial flows, originating from third parties and justified by opaque reasons.
In the presence of such signs, the judges concluded, they should have verified the origin of the funds or refused the payments.
Source EDITORIAL TEAM
Comments (1)
It's important for betting agencies to always verify the source of funds. Failure to do so can result in serious consequences, but sometimes it's difficult to understand and verify the origin of customers.