The unlawful organization of gambling in Georgia concerns a wide audience — operators of casinos, gaming halls and online platforms, their partners and employees. The criminal qualification in this situation rests on Article 192 of the Criminal Code of Georgia — unlawful entrepreneurial activity: the organization of gambling, when it is carried out without the required registration, permit or license or in violation of permit or license conditions and the conditions provided for by this article exist, is assessed precisely under this norm.
This page presents the full content of Article 192: the elements of the offence, the sanctions for natural and legal persons, and where the realistic directions of defense lie. Every figure is taken solely from the statutory text of this article.
Article 192: the elements of the offence
Under the first part, entrepreneurial activity — here, the organization of gambling — conducted without registration, a permit or a license, or in violation of permit or license conditions, is punishable if it caused significant damage or was accompanied by the receipt of income in a large amount. Both sides of this formulation matter: the absence of a permit alone does not create the crime unless significant damage or large income exists. From the structure of the article it follows that the prosecution must prove both: that the activity was conducted without registration, a permit or a license or in violation of their conditions, and that it caused significant damage or was accompanied by large income. The organization of gambling is not described as a separate act — it is assessed under the general norm on entrepreneurial activity, so the entire dispute turns on these two conditions.
For the staff of such a business this structure has a direct consequence: participation in the work of a hall or a platform does not by itself say anything about criminal liability — what matters is the concrete role, the knowledge of the absence of a permit and the presence of the statutory conditions. These questions are assessed individually for each person involved.
It is also important to distinguish the complete absence of a permit or license from the violation of their conditions: in the first case the activity is entirely unpermitted; in the second a permit exists but the activity proceeds beyond its scope or in violation of established requirements. Both are punishable under the article, but they are proven differently in fact — and it is exactly here that the defense argumentation often unfolds.