For web gambling companies, “it is important to ensure that public policy should be defined by the Chilean parliament and the executive branch, not the judiciary.”
After this Tuesday, supreme court It ordered the blocking of access to 20 online gambling sites from Chile, saying they were illegal. A group of online gaming platforms asserted that the court was being held to an “irregular standard”.
The court’s decision came after a protection appeal filed in 2022 by Pola Chilena de Beneficencia against telecommunications company Mundo Pacifico. In this, we were asked to block online gambling sites and not promote them. .
In light of this, the group that brought together Betano, Besson, Courbet and Latamwin gambling companies, through attorney and lobbyist Carlos Baeza, expressed their regret. “Exactly one year ago, on August 31, 2022, the Supreme Court’s Third Bench made a sudden and sudden change of opinion in its unanimous decision on the same protection appeal filed, which found that “something that is not true It has been determined that this is an “constitutionally exceptional act” and therefore an ideal means for this purpose.” .
they added this They do not share “any of the arguments” used by the Supreme Court A recent ruling states that the case is “constitutional, criminal, and civil.” They cite Article 63, Article 19 of the Constitution to justify their position. “Establishes that the regulation of lotteries, racetracks, and gambling must be done only by law.” . They added, “This does not imply a prohibition, but rather a guarantee.”
Additionally, they cite Articles 276 and 277 of the Penal Code, which “do not include online gambling as a prohibited and sanctioned activity.” Similarly, they cite Civil Code Article 1466, which “creates a defect (illegal object) in the obligation associated with a gambling contract,” which “makes the contract “unlawful.” ” because that would “simply add to the causal relationship of gambling.” Final invalidity must be declared judicially in each case. ”
On the third point, the online gambling company assured that “this judgment is yet another judgment on this issue” and added that “there are several resolutions still pending in court, which have been indicated by the Third Chamber.” It may or may not be consistent with this new standard that was set by the “Supreme Court”.
In the opinion of a lawyer who is an advisor to online gambling platforms, “it is important to ensure that public policy should be defined by the Chilean executive branch and parliament, and not by the judiciary.” “We should not change the legislative process that we have supported from the beginning.”
Let’s not forget that attorney Carlos Baeza received nearly P1 billion in payments from the Latamwin gambling site (a signatory of this statement), according to the complaint filed by the Internal Revenue Service. A professional who has led numerous lobbying meetings with members of Congress and participated in House sessions.
On the fourth point, the gambling company’s statement cited the “international context” and assured that “there is no record of the existence of similar judgments in OECD countries.” They added: “The legal systems of these countries seem to understand that attempts to block technological progress through judicial decisions are wholly inappropriate.” For this reason, effective debate has always been based on the legislative headquarters of the country in question. ”
Finally, they “remain steadfast support for the efforts undertaken by the National Assembly, led today by the Treasury Department and the House Economics Committee, and which have made decisive progress in establishing modern regulation for the industry.” “We have achieved this,” he said. In Chile, this is to strengthen tax collection and legitimately protect all users. ”
Source: Biobiochile
