The Civil Nature of Play
Assessing a dispute with a foreign operator begins from a fundamental norm of the Civil Code. Article 951 establishes: play or wager does not give rise to a claim. This rule also extends to a loan or advance deliberately given for play or wager. Likewise, performance rendered on the basis of play or wager cannot be reclaimed. Thus, as a rule, a won amount does not create an enforceable obligation on which to sue.
The exception to this general rule lies in article 952: a lottery contract or similar games give rise to an obligation if they — a draw, casting of lots or ballot — are permitted by the state. A qualified financial contract, however, is not play or wager, and the operation of these rules does not extend to it.
What This Means for a Dispute
Two situations must be distinguished. First: a licensed game permitted by the state — here the exception operates, and the winnings give rise to an obligation; such a dispute has a proper foundation. Second: an unlicensed foreign platform — here the sign of state permission is absent, and the general rule — the non-arising of a claim — operates. The court perspective in these two cases is fundamentally different.
Therefore the strategy of the dispute is built, first of all, on qualification: whether the concrete transaction is connected with a game permitted by the state. If not — the legal construction of the basis of the claim must be different: within the circle of claims of another character, if they can be found in the facts.