ANJL says Brazil’s tax authorities are trying to tax pre-regulation betting activity as Receita Federal probe draws criticism

The Associação Nacional de Jogos e Loterias (ANJL) is pushing back against a Receita Federal and Ministério Público operation against an online betting company in Recife on Friday (28/8), calling it selective and media-driven. For PSPs and operators, the dispute matters because it goes straight to a familiar high-risk question: what happens to transactions processed before the regulatory framework exists.

1. ANJL says the central issue is an attempt to criminalize and tax financial flows that took place before Brazil’s betting market was practically regulated in 2024. Bernardo Freire, the association’s legal director, argued that retroactive taxation has no basis in the Brazilian Constitution: “You cannot tax what did not exist.”
2. According to ANJL, the sector operated in a legal and tax limbo between 2018, when it received initial authorization, and 2024, when practical regulation came into force. The association says the absence of a specific economic classification at Receita Federal and the lack of an official collection channel meant platforms could not properly declare income tax on gaming operations.
3. In that period, ANJL says major law firms structured operations by incorporating the corporate headquarters abroad and hiring service providers in Brazil. When a bettor placed a wager, the money was transferred overseas by partner financial institutions and deposited into a so-called conta bolsão (pool account). According to Freire, this cross-border flow was subject to 1.5% IOF (Imposto sobre Operações Financeiras) on the outbound transfer and another 1.5% when winnings were sent back to the player.
4. Freire said “about 90% to 100%” of companies used this structure, and rejected claims that the setup amounted to money laundering. That detail matters for PSPs because it suggests the payment routing model was not fringe behavior but, by ANJL’s account, the industry norm before regulation caught up.
5. Receita Federal’s special secretary, Robinson Barreirinhas, told a different story: he said there are signs the betting activity was already being run in Brazil for about seven years, roughly five years before the sector was authorized to operate regularly. He said the evidence shows the organization was already present in Brazil, with employees and beneficiaries in the country, while paying no taxes and not subjecting itself to Brazilian regulation.

ANJL also criticized how the operation was conducted, but the text does not include the rest of that objection. For payment providers, the useful takeaway is narrower: Brazil’s betting market still has a live fight over the boundary between pre-regulation processing, tax exposure, and what regulators may treat as evidence of operating domestically before the rulebook was in place.