Bank Customer in Austria Pursues Return of Lost Online Gambling Funds from Financial Institution
Spin on the Austrian Gambler's Quest for €27,000Starring an Intrepid Punter and Maltese Legal Bureaucracy
An Austrian Gambler Lost €27K in an Illicit Online Casino - Now Wants it Back
In a gripping battle reminiscent of a Hollywood thriller, an audacious Austrian player is attempting to retrieve€27,000 lost at an illegal online casino in Austria, as reported by Der Standard.
It's hard to argue that this casino wasn't skirting the law, as countless other cases confirm. However, online casinos based in Malta enjoy a certain level of protection from foreign litigation, courtesy of the often maligned law Bill No. 55.
This law, enacted about two years ago and currently under EU Commission scrutiny, shields Maltese online casinos from refunding losses incurred due to illegal activities - despite claims from players demanding justice.
The Player Squares Off Against the Bank
In a landmark ruling in December 2024, the Austrian Supreme Court (OGH), under case number 3 Nc 72/24d, allowed the enforcement of gambling refunds within Austria. However, the operator of the illegal casino in this case is expected to evade the court's decision.
Undeterred, the player has opted for a new strategy: they've turned their attention to the bank where the gambling company's money resides. As of now, the bank has declined to release the funds voluntarily.
To secure her claim legally, the player is now planning to sue the bank, launching a third-party liability claim against companies indirectly involved in illicit activities. Similarly, lawyers in Germany are adopting this approach for their clients.
The Freedom to Provide Services Within the EU Remains Unclear
The European Court of Justice was set to decide on April 9, 2025, whether foreign online casinos can operate legally in Germany without a German license, leveraging the freedom to provide services under Article 56 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU).
Although the ruling pertains to Germany, it's likely to be applicable across the EU. The crux of the question is whether national gambling laws within the EU prevail over the freedom to provide services framework.
The final arguments haven't been presented yet, with a decision expected on July 10, 2025. Additionally, the case covers a period in the past, so its applicability to future situations remains unclear.
The Bank Lawsuit Could Take Years to Resolve
If the lawsuit against the bank fails or the payout is delayed, the plaintiff plans to claim bank deposits from the European Central Bank (ECB). However, the effectiveness of this approach is questionable.
Regardless, the court case could take years to resolve, as experts believe the verdict could set a significant precedent requiring careful preparation. Given that such cases in Austria expire only after 30 years, there's no urgency to rush the decision.
At Least: The player has assigned their claim to litigation funder Jufina, potentially receiving a portion of their money already.
Hurdles on the Path to Justice
The legal landscape for pursuing claims against third-party entities, such as banks, associated with illegal gambling enterprises is fraught with difficulties. The Austrian Supreme Court's ruling in case 3 Nc 72/24d has opened a new avenue for justice, however, giving players and their lawyers a reason to celebrate.
Whether this paradigm shift will ultimately result in the player's gained €27,000 remains to be seen. One thing is clear: the road to justice will not be smooth, and the player's resilience will be tested throughout the legal process.
Information nuggets:1. The current status of third-party liability claims against banks associated with illegal gambling enterprises in Austria, specifically in relation to case 3 Nc 72/24d, revolves around the enforcement of gambling claims, where the Austrian Supreme Court has ruled on international jurisdiction for enforcing claims against third parties located abroad, such as in Malta. This indicates that banks or financial institutions involved with illegal gambling enterprises could potentially face liability claims if found to have facilitated or supported such activities, but specific details about the bank's involvement in the discussed case or the exact status of third-party liability claims against banks are not provided.2. The Austrian Supreme Court's decision in case 3 Nc 72/24d implies that Austrian courts have jurisdiction to enforce claims against third parties located abroad, such as in Malta, potentially setting a precedent that could impact how banks are held accountable for their role in supporting illegal activities.
- The gambler, after assigning their claim to litigation funder Jufina, is now planning to sue a bank, asserting a third-party liability claim against the financial institution for their indirect involvement in illicit online gambling activities, a strategy also adopted by German lawyers for their clients.
- Despite the Austrian Supreme Court's ruling in December 2024 allowing the enforcement of gambling refunds within Austria, suing the operator of the illegal casino in this case may prove fruitless, prompting the gambler to explore alternative avenues, such as going after the bank where the gambling company's money resides.
- In a bid to put additional pressure on banks involved in illegal online casinos, law experts are eyeing the European Central Bank as a possible route for claims, although the effectiveness of this approach is uncertain.
- The player's legal battle against the bank could take several years to resolve, with the potential to establish a significant precedent for future claims against third-party entities associated with illicit gambling enterprises, regardless of their location, such as those based in Malta.
