INDIA Trends and Developments Contributed by: Priyank Ladoia, Raghav Seth, Tanmay Sharma and Arjun Narang, AZB & Partners
stituted with monetary penalties for certain offences without any express bar on retrospective applicabil - ity. Consequently, the Delhi High Court interpreted the amendments favourably and extended the benefit even though the violation was prior to the amendment by quashing the criminal prosecution and transferring the violation to the competent authority for penalty proceedings. The issue still remains that courts have recognised that such retrospective applicability of beneficial amendments can extend ex post facto, however, the said power to apply the amended law retrospectively is available to courts only when there is no express bar on retrospective application. Instead of providing for an express bar, the legislature’s silence on retro - spective applicability would have, at least, enabled courts to adopt a beneficial interpretation and extend the benefit of legislation like the JV Act and the pro - posed JV2 to pending prosecutions, on a case-by- case basis. To maximise the impact of the JV Act and JV2, the Indian government may consider amending Section 4 to allow retrospective application of decriminalised provisions. Doing so would accelerate the resolution of longstanding cases, reduce judicial burden, and strengthen India’s trust-based governance model. This will enable litigants and courts to avail the benefit of decriminalisation for technical, minor, or compliance- based infractions, and get the same compounded or otherwise disposed of, without protracted trials. New offences in the digital era While decriminalisation continues for minor offences, India is simultaneously expanding regulatory over - sight in emerging digital domains. Another trend that is being witnessed in India is the increasing regula - tory scope over digital token payments, taxation, and reporting obligations on such transactions as well as online betting and gambling. The Indian regulatory authorities have increased the number of investiga - tions into cryptocurrency exchanges and even online betting and gambling apps. The Indian government has introduced a new statute, ie, the Promotion and Regulation of Online Gaming Act, 2025 (“Online Gaming Act”) to regulate the entire
online gaming ecosystem. For the first time, the Online Gaming Act criminalises any game offered on the internet where players deposit money or something of value with the expectation of winning more money or prizes, defined as an “Online Money Game”. The Online Gaming Act has created a new offence in rela - tion to actions which enable, operate, or facilitate any Online Money Game service. Offerings by platforms such as Pokerbaazi and Dream11 which include real money, ie, an Online Money Game service, are now illegal even though such offerings and services were completely legal prior to the Online Gaming Act. The new offences created by the Online Gaming Act which are punishable with imprisonment for the first time are as follows. • Offering or abetting in the offering of any Online Money Game – it is now an offence to offer any game which requires a fee or deposit of money in return for the expectation of winning any stake. This includes card games such as poker and sports betting. It is punishable with imprisonment of up to three years. A repeat conviction for this offence is punishable with imprisonment of three to five years. • Advertisement of any Online Money Game – it is now an offence to participate in advertising any Online Money Game offerings, including through direct participation like promotional activities or indirect participation such as hosting adverts of Online Money Games on a digital platform. This is punishable with imprisonment of up to two years. A repeat conviction for this offence is punishable with imprisonment of two to three years. • Facilitating transfer of funds – it is now an offence to facilitate any transaction of funds which are used to pay for any Online Money Game offerings. This covers banks and financial intermediaries who may offer front-end or back-end services for transferring or remitting funds. It is punishable with imprisonment of up to three years. A repeat con - viction for this offence is punishable with imprison - ment of three to five years. If a company commits any of these offences, the com - pany itself and the individuals in charge (such as direc - tors or managers) can be held responsible and pun - ished, unless they can prove the offence happened
116 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook