The Court of Frosinone acquitted the owner of 7 online gaming accounts of the crime foreseen for having unduly benefited from the citizen's income in consideration of the fact that the sums bet exceeded those won.
The matter began following a check on the disbursement of citizenship income carried out by the Fiuggi Financial Police from which anomalies emerged since, through the State Monopolies database, it had been able to ascertain that the accused was the owner of seven online gaming accounts.
The witness then specified that, although the aforementioned accounts did not have to be indicated for ISEE purposes, the income deriving from any winnings instead had to be declared; nevertheless, in the case in question, they had ascertained that the accused had not made any communication.
In any case, the accused had requested disbursement of the benefit of the so-called citizenship income in her favor in the year 2019 and had also received it for the entire year 2020. The seven online accounts already dated back to the year 2017, the year in which the amount played was Euro 66.714,00 and the amount won was Euro 64.000,00.
For the year 2018 the sums played were equal to Euro 19.972,00 and those won were equal to Euro 18.000,00, while for the year 2019 the sums played were equal to Euro 30.476,00 and the amount won was equal to Euro 29.343,00 ,2017. In all years, top-ups were made on the aforementioned accounts which, in the year 3.555,00, were equal to Euro 2018, while in 975,00 they were equal to Euro 2019 and, finally, in 2.130,00 they were equal to Euro XNUMX.
The accused subsequently confirmed that she had some online gaming accounts opened on various sites, sites which immediately oblige you to open an account to play. The accused then specified that she had invested on average Euro 0,05 or Euro 0,10 per play. The accused then justified the amount of the amounts in her account as follows: "With alternating phases of winning and losing in the aforementioned time it seems that I also gambled Euro 2.000,00 for example, but in reality the amounts won or losses are in the order of a few euros and at most the loss corresponds to the invested amount of Euro 10,00, therefore the astronomical figures described are the sum of bets made with Euro 10,00 of real outlay. Another option that these sites offer, when you don't play for a long time, are free bonuses to play and not cash out, therefore completely virtual, which I have used and which therefore are not cash top-ups, but which affect the amounts topped up to encourage the player customer to load the gaming account with their own money".
The judge of the Court of Frosinone acquitted the accused with reference to both crimes attributed to her due to the lack of the respective constitutive elements. Indeed, although it is known to this judge that art. 5, paragraph 7, legislative decree 4/2019, regarding the institution of Citizenship Income, provides that in order to prevent and combat impoverishment phenomena and the onset of gambling disorders (DGA), it is in any case done prohibition on the use of the economic benefit for games that involve cash winnings or other benefits, it must be highlighted that, not only that, the defendant's use of the benefit obtained in 2019 for movements relating to gaming accounts has not been demonstrated registered in her name and already in existence since 2017, but, above all, it has not been demonstrated that she has accrued, precisely as a result of the aforementioned gaming accounts, winnings capable of constituting significant changes in income for the purposes of obtaining and maintaining the benefit under exam.
The examined witness clearly reported that - for the year 2018 - the sums played were equal to Euro 19.972,00 and those won were equal to Euro 18.000,00, while for the year 2019 the sums played were equal to Euro 30.476,00, 29.343,00 and the amount won was equal to Euro XNUMX. In other words, the winnings were, in both years of investigative interest, less than the sums wagered, with the obvious consequence that there has been an impoverishment and not an enrichment of the heritage who, therefore, had no obligation to communicate anything. Furthermore, also considering the circumstance valorised by the questioned operator according to which, in all years, top-ups were made on the aforementioned accounts which, in the year 2017, were equal to Euro 3.555,00, while in 2018 they were equal to Euro 975,00 ,2019 and, finally, in 2.130,00 equal to Euro XNUMX, it must be said that it has not been demonstrated in any way that these amounts, which are actually rather small, have affected the income limits declared by the accused for the purposes of obtaining the benefit.
“Therefore, it appears clear that the finalization of the omissions or false indications to obtain and maintain the benefit, even if only to a lesser extent than that actually obtained, must be considered as a constitutive element of the contested crime and must, therefore, be the subject of the evidence against the public prosecution. In light of the overall investigation carried out, it appears clear that, in this case, such proof is completely lacking since the operating agents were limited to checking the balances on the gaming accounts, not even unequivocally attributable to the accused and without even verifying that the amount of the winnings was greater than that of the sums played. Therefore, in the absence of proof of the existence of a constitutive element of the contested crime, all that remains is to acquit the accused of the crime ascribed to her because the fact does not exist", as stated in the sentence.
