Under the Online Gaming Act: The Authority is empowered to determine whether an online game is an online money game. Based on the outcome of the determination, the Authority may initiate action under the Online Gaming Act and issue orders. The Online Gaming Rules prescribe the circumstances in which an online game is required to undergo determination, including where (i) the Authority, on its own motion, directs an online game service provider to have its game determined; (ii) an online game service provider intends to offer an online game as an e-sport; or (iii) the Central Government notifies a category of online social games requiring determination. In making such determination, the Authority considers factors including (i) whether the online game involves payment of fees, deposit of money or other stakes; (ii) whether users have an expectation of winning monetary or other enrichment in return for such payments; (iii) the nature and purpose of the payments, including whether they constitute participation fees, subscription or access fees, or bets or wagers; (iv) the structure and operation of the revenue model; and (v) whether in-game rewards, benefits or assets may be transferred, redeemed or monetised outside the game environment. Where an online game is determined to be an online money game, the Authority may initiate action under the Online Gaming Act. The Authority is also required to publish a list of online games determined to be online money games. Upon receiving directions from the Authority, banks, financial institutions and other persons facilitating financial transactions or authorisation of funds are required to suspend, restrict or discontinue transactions relating to such online money games, without delay. The Authority is further empowered to maintain records of online games determined or registered by it, inquire into complaints, issue directions concerning the offering, advertising and financing of online games, and issue guidelines and codes of practice in consultation with the Central Government. As per reports, until September 01, 2026, no online game has been granted registration under the Online Gaming Act. MeitY has further informed the Central Information Commission in response to a Right-to-Information (“RTI”) application that over 201 complaints have been received related to online gaming. States with licensing regimes/permit requirements: Goa, Daman and Diu –The Home Department, Gaming Commissioner, Government of Goa, is the licensing authority for casinos under the Goa Act. Sikkim – the Director, Sikkim State Lotteries, under the Finance Department of the Government of Sikkim is the licensing authority for Sikkim under the Sikkim Casinos Act. West Bengal - the licensing authority is the Commissioner of Police for conducting games of skill in a public place, such as a public market, fair, carnival or street. Physical – For states without licensing regimes/permit requirements, there are no specific regulating bodies governing the offering of games in the physical/offline format. Others – Over the past few years, enforcement action has been taken by several other Indian regulatory authorities for violations by gambling operators, such as: - ED, under the FEMA and PMLA, - Tax authorities, under the Income-tax Act, 2025 and the applicable GST laws (Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, and the state GST laws). - The Central Consumer Protection Authority (“CCPA”) under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019; - The authorized agencies under the Information Technology Act, 2000 (“IT Act”), along with the powers of the nodal officer to issue takedown requests under Section 79; - The police and other relevant law enforcement agencies. ## Supervision by Regulator Under the Online Gaming Act, the Authority is empowered to inquire into the nature of online games, issue directions to online game service providers, maintain records of determined and registered games, inquire into complaints and coordinate with relevant governmental and law enforcement authorities. Under the Sikkim Casinos Act, every licencee is required to submit a monthly form to the state government with the statement of gross gaming yield and levy payable to the Government. Under the West Bengal Gambling and Prize Competitions Act, 1957 (“West Bengal Act”), every person who promotes or conducts a prize competition is required to keep accounts relating to such competition and submit a statement of accounts to the licensing authority, i.e., the Commissioner of Police. Under the TN Act, TNOGA is required to collect and maintain information and data with respect to the activities of online game providers. The TNOGA is required to send periodical reports to the State Government of Tamil Nadu. The local online games providers must also provide several details to TNOGA at the time of application. As discussed above, the PMLA imposes certain AML/KYC and reporting obligations on ‘reporting entities’, including persons carrying on activities involving games of chance for cash or kind (including casinos), to verify the identity of clients and maintain records, report suspicious transactions, etc. The PMLA also requires such ‘reporting entities’ to inter alia furnish information to the Director FIU-IND, as and when required. Enforcement against licenced operators There is no pan-India licensing regime for online gaming operators. Hence, we have discussed general enforcement action against operators in this section. Please note that for the States that do have a licensing regime in India, we have not come across any enforcement action by their respective licensing authorities. Enforcement actions by Indian regulators: Enforcement Directorate: As per reports, the ED has undertaken investigations and enforcement actions involving online betting and gaming platforms, offshore gaming operators, payment intermediaries and persons involved in the promotion or facilitation of unlawful gaming activities. In the last two years, the ED has pursued a series of enforcement actions against RMG platforms under PMLA. In September 2026, the ED provisionally attached assets worth approximately INR 4.42 billion, held by entities associated with shareholders of a prominent RMG company, concerning its online rummy platforms. The ED alleges, inter alia, the use of undisclosed bots in cash games, withdrawal charges, and the routing of proceeds to shareholders through dividends and share buybacks. As per reports, the total assets attached, frozen or seized in the investigation stand at approximately INR 28.43 billion. In March 2026, the ED provisionally attached immovable properties in India and Dubai having a reported value of approximately INR 1,700 crore in connection with its investigation into an online betting platform. In November 2025, the ED arrested two directors of a prominent RMG company in connection with alleged money laundering involving the use of undisclosed AI-powered bots in real-money games and restrictions on withdrawals of player funds. Subsequently, in January 2026, the ED filed a prosecution complaint under the PMLA, and in February 2026, provisionally attached approximately USD 53.2 million held in overseas bank accounts in the United States and Singapore. In June 2025, the ED questioned film celebrities and cricketers in connection with their promotion of illegal online betting platforms. In May 2025, the ED investigated alleged diversion of funds belonging to educational institutions amounting to INR 53 million through online gambling platforms. During the raids, the agency seized around INR 3.8 million in cash, 49 debit cards associated with mule accounts, and various digital devices. In May 2024, ED seized nearly INR 900 million from cryptocurrency wallets held with various crypto exchanges in an investigation into an online gaming app. ED stated in its press release that the app masqueraded as an online gaming platform and promised users high returns on their investments. In August 2024, the ED also raided a payment service provider for alleged enabling / routing proceeds of unlawful online gambling in contravention of the PMLA. The ED also seized approximately INR 5 million pursuant to the investigation. In 2021, the ED had issued notices to several players who were using international debit and credit cards to bet on Euro Cup matches and remitting funds for RMG to offshore platforms. ## Tax Litigations In September 2022 the DGGI issued show cause notices to Gameskraft, a rummy platform, demanding about ₹21,000 crore on the basis that its supplies were actionable claims in betting and gambling taxable at 28%, not platform services. The Karnataka High Court quashed the notices in May 2023, holding that rummy is a game of skill. On 27 May 2026, in the Gameskraft Judgement, the Supreme Court reversed that order, restored the notices, and dismissed the connected writ petitions by online gaming, fantasy sports and casino operators. The Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of the levy, holding that the distinction between games of skill and games of chance is immaterial for determining the GST treatment of online money gaming. It further held that the 2023 amendments to the GST framework, introducing Rule 31B for online money gaming and Rule 31C for casinos, are clarificatory in nature and operate retrospectively, bringing into the tax ambit even the period prior to October 01, 2023. Several gaming operators had filed review petitions against the Gameskraft judgment which have been rejected by the Supreme Court. Further, in Fanmade11 Fantasy Sports Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India, the Supreme Court treated fantasy sports operators’ writ challenges to show cause notices as substantially covered by Gameskraft, declined to examine the merits, and directed them to alternative statutory remedies before lower authorities. As per news reports, the aggregate proposed GST demands against Dream11, Gameskraft Technologies Private Limited and Play Games24x7 Private Limited were reduced from approximately INR 70,213 crore to INR 17,298 crore in confirmed principal tax liabilities, representing a reduction of approximately 75%. This followed the recalculation of taxable value based on player deposits rather than cumulative stakes, including redeployed winnings. Police: Police, across all States in India, have been active in undertaking enforcement actions against activities involving betting, gambling, etc. Some examples of such enforcement actions by the police are discussed below: In April 2026, the Goa Cyber Crime Police arrested six individuals for allegedly operating an online betting racket involving Indian Premier League (“IPL”) cricket matches. In May 2026, the Gurugram Cyber Crime Police arrested four individuals for allegedly operating an online betting and cyber fraud racket through an online gaming platform. In April 2025, the Chhattisgarh Police arrested 14 individuals for allegedly operating an online betting racket through an online betting application during IPL matches. The police seized 67 mobile phones, eight laptops, 94 ATM cards and other equipment, along with records of betting transactions worth approximately INR 30 lakh. In May 2025, the Chandigarh Police arrested five individuals for allegedly operating an IPL betting racket from a rented accommodation. The police seized 43 mobile phones, six laptops, two tablets and other electronic equipment allegedly used for facilitating betting transactions. In December 2024, Gurugram police arrested three men for allegedly running an online gambling racket and seized large amount of equipment from the apartment, including but not limited to, laptops, passports, webcams etc. In November 2024, the Gurugram Cyber Police busted an online gambling call centre and arrested 9 men allegedly involved in the activity. The First Information Report has been filed on the grounds of cheating under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (“BNS”). In April 2024, Jharkhand police conducted a raid and seized lottery tickets worth INR 0.9 million. In April 2024, Pune police conducted raids and arrested ten individuals who were suspected of being a part of an international betting syndicate involved in online betting on IPL matches. The police also seized goods worth INR 0.2 million. Three people were arrested in Indore, India for their involvement in an illegal online cricket betting ring. The police conducted an investigation along with a raid, and apprehended suspects accused of operating the betting ring using various online platforms. Betting: The ED conducted searches in multiple states in India in relation to an extensive betting operation, and as of April 2025, seized/ frozen /attached movable & immovable assets valued at approximately INR 30,024.7 million. Subsequently, in March 2026, the ED provisionally attached immovable properties in India and Dubai valued at approximately INR 1,700 crore in connection with the same investigation. The Income Tax Department seized cash and jewelry aggregating approximately INR 3.89 crore (approximately USD 501,688) from premises linked to a Mumbai-based business group, reportedly operated by two individuals, engaged in online gaming and betting activities. On 30 December 2022, Chhattisgarh Police apprehended an Instagram influencer, for promoting an online betting application on Instagram. The police reportedly initiated preventive proceedings against him for promoting online gambling activities. Offshore enforcement: As such the Gaming Enactments are State laws and can be argued to be not applicable to activities outside the relevant state, including offshore operators, however, Online Gaming Act expressly extends to online money gaming services offered within India or operated from outside India. Accordingly, offshore operators offering online money games to users in India are subject to the prohibitions under the Online Gaming Act, irrespective of their place of incorporation or operation. However, while the Online Gaming Act expressly provides for extraterritorial application, it would be practically difficult for the Government to enforce the criminal penalties, fine and imprisonment of officers and directors overseas, though theoretically possible through India’s Mutual Legal Assistance Treaties with various countries where the processes and criteria may be cumbersome or difficult to achieve. In the event any specific action is initiated against a foreign entity, while the enforcement action against such foreign entity would be a prolonged process and practically difficult process, there is a risk that any director/officer of the foreign entity may be prosecuted when they travel to India. However, to enforce this extra territorially, it's a challenge owing to the procedures and provisions under various international treaties. The enforcement through blocking of websites, however, can be enforced through court orders. Under the Online Gaming Act though, prohibited online money games can be blocked as per the provisions and safeguards under the Information Technology (Procedure and Safeguards for Blocking for Access of Information by Public) Rules, 2009. As discussed above, there has been heightened scrutiny and enforcement action against foreign gambling and sports betting platforms offered remotely in India by several Indian regulatory authorities. In fact, as mentioned above, MeitY has ordered intermediary platforms to block access to these apps through several blocking orders issued between 2022 – till date. In April 2026, the Government informed Parliament that 8376 betting and gambling URLs have been blocked or actioned against as of March 2026. Separately, the DGGI in coordination with MeitY, had blocked 357 websites/URLs associated with illegal or non-compliant offshore online money gaming platforms. In April 2026, MeitY issued an advisory to VPN providers and other intermediaries directing them not to enable access to blocked online betting and prediction market platforms. Typical triggers for enforcement against unlicensed operators: Apart from the direct enforcement which may be anticipated against offshore platforms under the Online Gaming Act, some of the other triggers for regulatory action against offshore gambling providers are (1) direct and surrogate advertisement of foreign sports betting; (2) violation of FEMA and Current Account Rules; (3) money laundering and financial fraud; and (4) tax related issues. Some of the triggers for regulatory action against Indian gaming operators are: (1) offering prohibited online money games, (2) non-compliance with applicable licensing, registration and regulatory requirements; (3) tax related issues, and (4) misleading advertisements and unfair trade practices; and (5) contraventions of applicable anti-money laundering and other financial regulations.
India · Question 10 of 11
India Gambling — Enforcement: How hard does the regulator enforce?
Unfavourable · Confirmed · Expert approved · 7 post-review updates · Not reviewed · In expert review scope · Back to full India report →
Key section parameters
| Jurisdiction | India (IN) |
|---|---|
| Regulator | Recorded in register |
| Favourability | Unfavourable |
| Confidence | Confirmed |
| Review status | Expert approved · 7 post-review updates · Not reviewed · In expert review scope |
| Last collected | 4 Nov 2026 |
Summary answer
Under the Online Gaming Act: The Authority is empowered to determine whether an online game is an online money game. Based on the outcome of the determination, the Authority may initiate action under the Online Gaming Act and issue orders. The Online Gaming Rules prescribe the circumstances in whic…
Not reviewed Read update
Enforcement activity against India's unlicensed online betting and gaming sector intensified this period at both central and state level. The Enforcement Directorate's Mumbai Zone-II unit searched twenty premises across Mumbai, Pune, Mehsana, Surat and Hyderabad on 13 October 2026, exercising powers under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act to investigate alleged laundering of proceeds from unlicensed betting platforms All Panel Exchange and MGM91 through mule bank accounts, trade over-invoicing and cryptocurrency transfers. Separately, Himachal Pradesh police raided an illegal online gaming operation in Birta, Kangra district, on 24 October 2026, detaining six individuals and seizing forty-one phones and seven laptops, a state-level cyber-crime action independent of the central agency's process. Both actions apply existing anti-money-laundering and criminal powers against operators outside the licensing perimeter rather than reflecting any new enforcement instrument. No primary government release from the Enforcement Directorate, the Press Information Bureau or the relevant ministry was located confirming either action; both rest on syndicated press reporting, a gap the record notes rather than resolves. The pattern across both actions is consistent with the prohibition's existing enforcement theory: unlicensed betting and gaming operators, and the banking and crypto channels moving their proceeds, remain subject to Prevention of Money Laundering Act search and investigation powers and to ordinary state criminal process, in the continued absence of any licensing regime that would otherwise define a safe channel.
Not reviewed Read update
The Enforcement Directorate searched twenty premises across five cities on 13 October 2026, acting under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, in a probe into betting platforms identified as All Panel Exchange and MGM91. The action alleges that victims were induced to deposit funds and then denied withdrawals, with the resulting proceeds, estimated at roughly Rs800 crore, layered through shell firms and mule bank accounts before conversion into cryptocurrency and movement offshore via exchanges, reportedly exploiting fabricated know-your-customer documentation. The enforcement theory applied rests on the Prevention of Money Laundering Act's treatment of layered gambling-fraud proceeds as criminal property, a theory that operates independently of, and does not depend on, the pending Supreme Court ruling on the constitutionality of the Promotion and Regulation of Online Gaming Act, 2025. This is a probable-confidence finding: it traces to the Enforcement Directorate's own statement as relayed by two secondary outlets, with no primary government publication retrieved, so some scope details could be refined as the matter develops. No other enforcement events were surfaced; the action is reported here as a discrete, dated episode rather than as evidence of a broader pattern.
Not reviewed Read update
PROGA 2025 establishes a severe enforcement architecture. Continued operation of an online money-gaming service is a cognizable and non-bailable criminal offence carrying up to three years imprisonment or a fine of up to INR 1 crore, or both. Advertising such games, directly or indirectly, is separately criminalised with penalties of up to two years imprisonment or INR 50 lakh. This statutory regime has been actively enforced: the Enforcement Directorate carried out multi-location searches between 18 and 22 November 2025 in connection with real-money-gaming platform wind-down conduct. The combination of criminal liability at the operator level, a cognizable and non-bailable offence classification, and an active Enforcement Directorate investigation together constitute a hard enforcement posture with no comparable precedent in this jurisdiction's prior gambling-law history.
Not reviewed Read update
Enforcement under the PROG Act, 2025 and PROG Rules 2026 combines conventional investigative powers with a financial choke-point mechanism. Designated cyber-cell officials at the state, district and police-station level are empowered to investigate offences under the Act. Separately, the Online Gaming Authority of India may direct banks and financial institutions to suspend, restrict or block transactions tied to money-gaming platforms — a power layered on top of, and independent from, direct gaming-law enforcement. This bank-transaction-blocking power is probably the more consequential enforcement vector for evasion resistance, since it targets payment rails rather than platform infrastructure and is harder for an offshore or unregistered operator to route around than jurisdiction-limited police action. Registration of any game — where a registration exists — can be suspended or cancelled on certain grounds, though only after the service provider is given an opportunity of hearing. This financial choke-point enforcement layer, grounded in durable primary statute rather than discretionary guidance, materially raises the practical cost of continued unlicensed operation relative to the prior state-by-state regime.
Not reviewed Read update
Enforcement activity this cycle converged across criminal, fiscal, and money-laundering tracks. The Enforcement Directorate froze approximately ₹526.49 crore in bank and payment-gateway deposits, bonds, and fixed deposits, and arrested three founders of Gameskraft Technologies under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, a Tier 3-evidenced action illustrating active use of PMLA powers against payment infrastructure connected to gaming operations. Separately, the Supreme Court in DGGI v Gameskraft upheld a retrospective 28% GST on the full face value of stakes and deposits, restoring a show-cause notice understood to be approximately ₹21,000 crore and reviving industry-wide exposure estimated up to ₹1.5 trillion. Both developments are confirmed findings that materially escalate enforcement risk, and both indicate that legal jeopardy for pre-ban conduct continues independently of the prohibition's commencement date.
Not reviewed Read update
Enforcement this cycle centres on two confirmed and probable developments. The Supreme Court's Gameskraft ruling constitutionally validated the 28% GST levy on full stake and deposit value under Rule 31A of the CGST Rules, holding this applies irrespective of skill or chance, and upheld cumulative show-cause tax notices exceeding INR 1 lakh crore against operators. This is a confirmed judicial determination closing off the sector's principal historical defence against the higher levy. Separately, the government has ordered ISPs to block access to thousands of offshore gambling sites, an extraterritorial enforcement action assessed at probable confidence resting on a single T4 source not independently corroborated this cycle. No licence-revocation mechanism applies in the traditional sense, since the underlying real-money activity is now prohibited outright rather than licensed; the operative revocation-equivalent risk is retrospective tax liability crystallising into enforceable demand, and platform-level blocking cutting off offshore access routes entirely.
Not reviewed Read update
India's enforcement exposure for the unregulated and newly-prohibited online money-gaming sector runs on two tracks. Illegal offshore-style betting networks, exemplified by the Mahadev Online Book case, face proceeds-of-crime attachment under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, with the Enforcement Directorate estimating approximately INR 43,000 crore in proceeds of crime, alongside sustained site and app blocking now totalling approximately 4,900 cumulative blocks. Formerly-legal money-gaming operators, including fantasy sports, rummy and poker platforms that previously relied on a skill-predominance defence, now face direct statutory prohibition under Section 5 of the PROG Act, which removes that defence entirely and exposes continued operation to prosecution independent of any proceeds-of-crime finding.