Two Levels of Control: The Ministry of Finance and the Electronic Control System
Testing issues surface in gambling disputes whenever one side's case rests on a technical fact — the outcome of a draw, the state of a player account, or the behaviour of the gaming system itself. The Georgian Law on Organising Lotteries, Gambling and Profitable Games connects these technical facts to state control at two levels. Article 36 obliges the Ministry of Finance to supervise compliance with every requirement of the law and of the game rules (regulations). Article 36-1 adds a dedicated instrument: the electronic control system for the gambling business, which a selected person deploys and operates under a contract with the Revenue Service, in accordance with rules set by the Minister of Finance.
Under the same article, the electronic control system monitors the compliance of the organiser of a gaming machine, of system-electronic gambling (other than promotional draws) and of the totalizator organiser with their permit conditions and with Georgian legislation. The system is therefore not merely the operator's internal tool: it is a form of state control that records the technical interaction between player and organiser as it happens. As a direct consequence, the data of this system frequently ends up at the centre of the parties' arguments in disputes.
The Evidentiary Value of Control-System Data
In player-operator disputes — refusal to pay out winnings, account blocking, or challenges to the outcome of a game — the operator usually relies on its own internal reporting and logs. Control-system data changes that picture materially. Under Article 36-1(6) the Minister of Finance sets the requirements applicable to the system, so the data recorded in it follows a standardised, formalised structure and can be verified by the state supervisory authority itself, within the Ministry of Finance's Article 36 control mandate.
The jurisdictional axis is equally decisive: under Article 36-1(5), the selected person's server must be located in Georgia. The system's data therefore physically sits within Georgian jurisdiction, and any demand for access to it is assessed under Georgian law — unlike situations where the operator's own infrastructure is located abroad and obtaining logs must be routed through a foreign legal system. When preparing a dispute this difference is strategic: the party that can rely on control-system data holds a stronger position than one armed only with the operator's one-off certificate or a screenshot.
The Authorisation Certificate — the Documentary Trail of Testing
Article 36-1(8) provides that where the seeker or holder of a system-electronic totalizator permit uses a system built with its own resources for its activity, the selected person must examine that system and issue an authorisation certificate, in accordance with the standards and requirements introduced by a legal act of the Minister of Finance. The rules and conditions for issuing the certificate are themselves set by a legal act of the Minister of Finance. In the context of a dispute this means that the system's initial compliance was confirmed by an independent examination — and the trail of that examination (the certificate and the documentation attached to it) performs the function of evidence.
The authorisation certificate confirms conformity with the standards set by the Minister of Finance, covering the game and the essential products and services used with it. Where a dispute concerns the calculation of a wager or a winning amount, the parties' argumentation often turns on whether the specific operation followed the certified system logic. At this level testing becomes a central element of the dispute: the certificate confirms the system's conformity at the moment of issue, but the dispute usually requires establishing what happened in the concrete case — and there the system's operational data and expert assessment take over.
The Administrative-Law Angle
Control-system data matters not only in civil disputes but also in administrative proceedings. Under Article 36-1(7) the Government of Georgia may impose additional requirements and obligations on game organisers and on suppliers of gambling or profitable games for the purposes of deploying and operating the electronic control system, and non-fulfilment of those requirements is treated as a violation of permit conditions. The system's operational records thus become the factual basis on which compliance is assessed, with liability following the procedure established by the relevant legislation.
The practical consequence for an operator is straightforward: any defect connected to the system — incomplete data capture, an expired authorisation certificate, or a deviation from the system's requirements — is perceived as a risk simultaneously in civil litigation (the operator's position weakens because of it) and in administrative proceedings (the violation is established on the basis of the system's own data). Testing issues must therefore be managed by the operator in advance, before any conflict arises: periodic verification of the system's condition and prompt reaction to defects reduces the fine exposure and the litigation risk at the same time.
Engaging an Expert — a Practical Approach
When the technical facts of a dispute — the behaviour of a random number generator, the completeness of logs, signs of data manipulation — require specialist knowledge, a court-appointed expert examination is used. The procedure for appointing an expert, the expert's powers and the process for requesting a conclusion are governed by separate legislation and fall outside the scope of this page; what matters here is defining the expert material correctly.
In gambling-dispute practice, the material handed to an expert typically consists of the relevant records of the electronic control system, the operator's internal logs, the documentation connected to the authorisation certificate, and the game rules (regulations). The quality of the expert conclusion depends directly on the completeness of the material: if the operator cannot produce logs comparable with the system's data, its position is weakened. The recommendation therefore cuts both ways: the player's side should document its own actions (records, payment documents, the trail of communication with the operator), while the operator should ensure the completeness and availability of system data. Documentation of the authorisation certificate issued by the selected person and of the payment of the corresponding fees also serves to confirm the chain that links the system to its legal basis.
Note that the contract-based operation of the control system has a defined outer frame: under Article 36-1(3) the contract between the Revenue Service and the selected person is concluded for a term of no more than 15 years. When preparing a dispute, knowing this frame helps a party assess correctly which period's data is covered by the system's documented existence and where additional sources may need to be sought.
Frequently Asked Questions
Who operates the electronic control system for the gambling business?
A selected person — the party with whom the Revenue Service concludes a contract for a term of no more than 15 years; that person's server must be located in Georgia, and the requirements applicable to the system are set by the Minister of Finance.
What is the authorisation certificate and what role does it play in a dispute?
It is a certificate issued by the selected person confirming that the online system built by the permit seeker or holder with its own resources complies with the Minister of Finance's standards. In a dispute it is the documentary trail of technical conformity: it allows an assessment of whether a specific operation relied on certified system logic.
Can a player rely on control-system data?
The system exists to monitor compliance with permit conditions and legislation, and its data represents an objective, standardised source compared with the organiser's internal reporting. In preparing a dispute the player's side should rely on its own documentary trail (payments, communications), while access to system data is examined within the framework of the proceedings.
When is an expert engaged in a gambling dispute?
When establishing the disputed fact requires specialist knowledge — for example, assessing the behaviour of a generator, the completeness of logs or the integrity of data. The procedural rules are set by separate legislation; the expert material usually consists of the system's records, the operator's logs and the authorisation-certificate documentation.
How We Help on Legal.ge
Our team works on the technical layer of gambling disputes too: we help define the evidence correctly — assessing the consistency of control-system data, operator logs and the authorisation certificate, formulating the questions to be put to an expert, and preparing the statement of claim. For operators, we help detect a defective system condition in advance and reduce administrative risk. Contact us on Legal.ge for an individual assessment of your dispute.