Fact-check: the errors, inaccuracies and contradictions in the government’s briefing on cracking down on illegal betting

At a September 29 press conference on MP 1.394/2026, Brazilian ministers and agency heads mixed up requests with blocks, quoted a decree number that does not exist, and treated a three-day coincidence as a policy effect. For PSPs and acquirers, the important bit is simpler: several of the enforcement tools they described were already in force before the MP.

1. “We did not have legal tools to go after the money. The MP brought obligations for financial institutions.” That was labeled false in the fact-check. The financial squeeze measures came before the MP and were created by the government itself. Lula signed the Lei Antifacção on March 24, amending Lei 14.790/2023 to require financial and payment institutions to block accounts of irregular operators.In June, the president signed Decreto nº 13.033/2026, which regulates article 21-A of Lei 14.790, a provision added by Lei nº 15.358/2026. After that, the CMN approved a rule giving institutions 24 hours to block accounts, and that resolution entered into force on August 28, 2026.
2. The same official, Chico Lucas of Senasp, had also presented the numbers as if the legal architecture had only just arrived. But the government’s own previous statements point the other way: in June, Finance executive secretary Dario Durigan said Lei 14.790 already prevented payment institutions from processing transactions for illegal betting operators, and that the Lei Antifacção merely reinforced the process.The results cited at the briefing also predate the MP. In the first year of the regulated market, 54 institutions reported 1,255 occurrences involving 1,687 people with signs of transfers to illegal betting operators, and 550 bank accounts were closed.
3. The briefing also contradicted itself on timing. Minutes earlier, SPA inspection director Carlos Renato said 63 legal entities had been fined since September 10 — that is, before the MP and under the Lei Antifacção. In other words: the enforcement framework being described as new was already being used.
4. “The SPA, through decree 3083, determines the identification of irregular agents.” That was marked imprecise because the decree number is wrong. The relevant text is Decreto nº 13.033, dated June 19, 2026. It regulates article 21-A of Lei 14.790 and covers the procedure for blocking accounts of irregular operators and forfeiting assets in favor of the Union. The fact-check notes that this may have been a transcription error.
5. “10% of financial movements in Brazil stopped happening. Very likely they were gaming operations.” That was labeled misleading. The statement mixes up transaction count with financial volume, and it turns a three-day correlation into causation. The Central Bank data measure the number of operations, and the comparison uses the average of the four previous Saturdays, Sundays, and Mondays. The Central Bank did not say whether the drop was caused by the MP.The other metric disclosed by the government showed a cumulative decline of 15.5% relative to the prior period.

For payment companies serving high-risk merchants, the practical takeaway is not the rhetoric; it is the chronology. Account blocking, reporting duties, and enforcement against illegal betting operators were already embedded in Brazilian law before MP 1.394/2026. The briefing mainly shows how easy it is for public officials to blur what was newly announced with what was already enforceable.