Brazil's Supreme Federal Court (STF) has suspended a case on the criminalisation of traditional gambling after Justice Flávio Dino requested additional time to examine how the ruling should account for the country's regulated betting framework.
The case concerns Article 50 of the Criminal Contraventions Law, which sets penalties for operating or exploiting unauthorised games of chance. The provision covers the underground numbers lottery jogo do bicho, bingo and slot machines. The appeal originated in Rio Grande do Sul state, where an appeals panel ruled that organising gambling should no longer be treated as a criminal offence. The panel found that the 1941 prohibition conflicted with constitutional principles of entrepreneurial freedom and personal liberties. The STF accepted the case as a matter of general repercussion, meaning its final decision will set a precedent for similar disputes nationwide.
Reporting Justice Luiz Fux voted to uphold the constitutionality of Article 50. Dino agreed that the ban on illegal traditional games remains valid, but said the court should not define the scope of its ruling without considering the legal status of licensed online betting. In his view, an STF decision addressing only the 1941 ban could create legal inconsistency if it fails to account for forms of gambling that Congress has since authorised and regulated separately.
Dino requested a pedido de vista, a procedure granting a justice additional time to review the materials. The request suspended hearings pending a final decision. No date for resumption has been announced. Justice Dias Toffoli supported the need to consider the social consequences of betting in a broader context. He noted that the court now faces a new and complex environment, not the gambling market that existed when the law was enacted in the 1940s.
The STF is not currently deciding whether to ban all betting or ruling on the constitutionality of the federal framework for regulated wagering. The immediate case concerns whether Article 50 can continue to criminalise games without specific authorisation. Separate challenges to the betting regime remain under review.
