• Home
• News
• EU Opinion Supports Freezing Offshore Gambling Accounts

EU Opinion Supports Freezing Offshore Gambling Accounts

EU Advocate General Says Courts May Freeze Offshore Gambling Accounts – Insolvency Outside the Bloc Not Automatic Barrier

Key Takeaways

• The Advocate General of the Court of Justice of the European Union stated that EU courts may issue preservation orders against offshore gambling operators, even if insolvency proceedings are opened outside the EU.
• The opinion concerns Case C-716/24, involving a German player seeking to recover around 57,000 euros from a Curaçao-licensed operator.
• The European Account Preservation Order mechanism allows courts to freeze bank accounts across EU Member States before enforcement.
• Insolvency proceedings in third countries should be assessed at the enforcement stage, not when issuing a preservation order.

Opinion in Case C-716/24 Addresses Offshore Gambling Structures

On 5 March, Advocate General Rimvydas Norkus delivered his opinion in Case C-716/24, addressing how EU cross-border debt recovery tools interact with insolvency proceedings opened outside the European Union.

The case stems from a claim brought by a German player who sought to recover approximately 57,000 euros in online gambling losses from DX Ltd NV, a company incorporated in Curaçao. After obtaining a default judgment in Germany, the claimant applied for a European Account Preservation Order, known as EAPO, to freeze bank accounts believed to belong to the operator in Cyprus.

The legal question examined by the Advocate General was whether insolvency proceedings opened in a non-EU jurisdiction should prevent an EU court from issuing such a preservation order against bank accounts located within the Union.

How the European Account Preservation Order Works

The EAPO framework was created to enable creditors to secure assets held in bank accounts across EU Member States before enforcement takes place. In practical terms, it allows a court in one Member State to freeze funds in another Member State in order to prevent a debtor from transferring or withdrawing assets before a claim can be enforced.

The mechanism is designed as a uniform cross-border enforcement tool. It aims to reduce the risk that debtors move funds across jurisdictions within the EU to avoid payment after a judgment has been issued.

In the case at hand, the German claimant used this instrument to target accounts in Cyprus that were allegedly linked to the Curaçao-licensed operator.

Insolvency Proceedings in Third Countries Not an Automatic Obstacle

Complicating the matter, insolvency proceedings had been opened against DX Ltd NV in Curaçao. As Curaçao is not part of the European Union, its insolvency framework falls outside the EU Recast Insolvency Regulation.

According to the Advocate General, Article 2(2)(c) of the EAPO Regulation must be interpreted as not precluding the issuing of a preservation order where national law in the Member State issuing the order recognises insolvency proceedings opened in a third country.

In practical terms, this means that EU courts may still issue preservation orders freezing bank accounts within the EU even when insolvency proceedings against the debtor have been opened abroad and recognised under national law.

The opinion clarifies that the reference to insolvency proceedings in the EAPO Regulation concerns only proceedings opened in EU Member States. Proceedings initiated in third countries fall outside that specific exclusion.

The Advocate General further stated that potential conflicts between a preservation order and foreign insolvency proceedings should be examined at the enforcement stage rather than at the stage of issuing the order. A preservation order is considered a temporary measure intended solely to secure assets. Whether those assets can ultimately be used to satisfy a claim may depend on how courts reconcile the preservation order with foreign insolvency regimes later in the process.

Implications for Cross-Border Gambling Disputes

The opinion highlights the legal exposure of offshore gambling operators that serve EU-based customers while maintaining corporate registration outside the bloc.

Many operators licensed in jurisdictions such as Curaçao rely on payment infrastructure located in EU financial centres, including Cyprus, Malta, Luxembourg and Ireland. This structure enables access to European banking systems even when operators do not hold national licences in the countries where their customers reside.

According to the Advocate General’s interpretation, such arrangements may not shield operators from asset-preservation measures if EU players obtain court judgments in their home jurisdictions.

The opinion also follows another recent development at the Court of Justice of the European Union. In January 2026, in Case C-77/24, referred to as the Wunner case, the Court ruled that plaintiffs may generally bring claims under the law of their home country when pursuing unlicensed operators. In that case, the Court supported the view of Austrian courts that, despite the absence of harmonised EU gambling laws, disputes can be pursued under national consumer and tort law. Malta had rejected that interpretation, arguing that foreign courts should not intervene in matters related to licences issued under the Malta Gambling Act.

Taken together, these cases address how EU legal tools apply to operators established outside the Union but active within it.

Next Steps in the Judicial Process

The Advocate General’s opinion is not the final judgment. A ruling from the Court of Justice of the European Union in Case C-716/24 is expected later in 2026. The Court may follow the reasoning of the Advocate General or adopt a different interpretation.

The final decision will determine whether EU courts can consistently rely on the EAPO framework to freeze accounts linked to offshore gambling operators, even where insolvency proceedings have been initiated outside the EU.

Our Assessment

The Advocate General’s opinion in Case C-716/24 states that insolvency proceedings opened in third countries should not automatically prevent EU courts from issuing preservation orders under the EAPO framework. For offshore gambling operators with banking infrastructure inside the EU, this interpretation indicates that assets held within Member States may be subject to freezing orders in cross-border disputes. A final judgment later in 2026 will clarify whether this approach becomes binding across the European Union.