View current issue (PDF) - International Masters of Gaming Law

transfers to certain account numbers. As aresult, the transfer of funds through standardcredit transfers is once again open.The Norwegian Gaming Boardrecently published its evaluation reportof the transfer ban. The Gaming Boardconcludes that the transfer ban has nothad the desired effect, and that transfersto international gaming companiesunlicensed in Norway still continuesundisturbed, in spite of the prohibition.The Gaming Board is not satisfied with thedevelopment, but lacks the authority andtools to counteract the development.The prohibition is therefore highlyineffective and the Gaming Authorityhas few or no measures against thesetransactions as the prohibition is onlyapplicable for transactions marked asgambling related, and as the third-partysolutions remove this connection, theprohibition is nearly impossible to enforce.Violations of theNorwegian gaming provisionsIn the event that a gambling operator isin breach of the provisions laid down inthe Norwegian gaming acts, this could inprinciple lead to criminal sanctions. Butso far, the Norwegian Gaming Authorityhas only issued administrative sanctionsto companies in breach of the Norwegianregulations. However, if the gamblingoperator is very aggressive towards theNorwegian market and does not complywith relevant administrative sanctionsissued by the Gaming Authority, thepossibility of criminal proceedings cannotbe excluded.The prosecution of a foreign basedgaming company would, however, raisejurisdictional issues pursuant to TheNorwegian Penal Code. As of today, itis unclear whether or not Norway willhave jurisdiction with regards to a penalprosecution of such companies.This is supported by the statements madein the Norwegian white paper (Ot.prp. nr.44 (2002-2003)) where jurisdictional issuespursuant to The Norwegian Penal Codeare discussed in context with Norwegiangaming companies offering unlicensedgambling from branch companies basedoutside of Norway. The committee statedthat the prosecution of a gaming provideroffering unlicensed gambling from anothercountry to Norway would be difficult, unlessthe offered game is illegal in the countryfrom which it was provided.However, The Norwegian Gaming Boardstated in a case against eurolotto.com inApril 2011, that Article 12 of The NorwegianPenal Code would be applicable as the effectof illegal targeting and marketing towardsthe Norwegian market will fulfill theconditions laid down in Article 12 of TheNorwegian Penal Code.Under the current situation criminalproceedings as a result of infringements toNorwegian gaming laws therefore constitutesa challenge for the Norwegian Authorities,and our impression is that it is thereforeunlikely that the Norwegian Authoritieswould pursue such a case exhaustively.EU/EEA CompatibilityNorway is obliged, as a European Free TradeAssociation (EFTA) Member State and partyto the European Economic Area (EEA)Agreement, to comply with the provisions ofthe EEA Agreement.Several gaming organizations and gamingcompanies are critical of the Norwegiangaming system, and are of the opinion thatthe gaming system is in defiance with theEEA Agreement. Some gaming companieshave challenged the Norwegian gamingregulation under the references to the EEAAgreement. Particularly relevant in thismatter is Article 36 of the EEA Agreementregulating the freedom to provide services.Relevant in this matter is Case E-3/06,“Ladbrokes”, relating to the Norwegiansports betting regime. Ladbrokes claimedthat they were legally entitled to providetheir services to and within Norway as aconsequence of their valid gaming licenseissued in another EU/EEA State.As a result of Ladbrokes claim, OsloCity Court asked the EFTA Court for theirevaluation on the matter. The EFTA Courtconcluded that each EEA Member State hasthe right to require possession of a license,thereby rejecting the automatic recognitionof a license issued by another EU/EEAMember State. The City Court thereforerejected Ladbrokes claim.The Norwegian system has on thesegrounds, so far, proved itself to be incompliance with the relevant provisions ofthe EEA Agreement and the relevant EU/EEA case law.Closing remarks and thoughts on achanging regulatory landscape in Norway.The Norwegian gaming regulations may atfirst seem rigorous and make the Norwegiangaming market seemingly unavailable forinternational gaming providers. But likemost international based operators youwill probably experience that a wide rangeof gambling service can be offered to theNorwegian players without any interferenceof the Norwegian Gaming Authorities if theseservices are rendered from outside Norwayand not marketed aggressively and explicitfor the Norwegian market and player.If relatively basic ground rules arefollowed the operators should steer clear ofthe Norwegian gambling prohibitions andmay even find that the Norwegian internetbased gambling market is more open thanat first glance. This will especially apply forthe games qualified as “social gaming” asthese games will not fall under the gamblingdefinition according to the Norwegianregulations, and can thus be offered freely toand within Norway.With regards to changes in the Norwegiangaming regulations, it would not be anhonest assessment if we were to claim that amore open legislation is on the horizon.However, gambling regulations arechanging rapidly across Europe, andthe Norwegian Gaming Authorities arewatching these developments closely,especially with regards to the newlyimplemented changes in Denmark.The new Danish gambling regimetogether with potential changes in theSwedish system and the developments inEuropean countries may even eventuallypush through a change in Norway as well.Joakim Marstrander:Joakim Marstrander is Head ofthe Commercial Law departmentin Deloitte Law firm in Oslo,Norway. He can be reached atjmarstrander@deloitte.no or+47 48126326dANiel Henriksen:Daniel Henriksen is an AssociateLawyer in the Commercial Lawdepartment of Deloitte Law firm inOslo, Norway. He can be reachedat dhenriksen@deloitte.no or + 47450 39 855.12 | European Gaming Lawyer | Autumn Issue | 2013