Paraguay Proposes New National Gambling Authority as 12 October 2026 Bill Sets Out Enforcement Powers

Paraguay has sent a bill to Congress on 12 October 2026 to create the Dirección Nacional de Juegos de Azar, or DINAJZAR, a new legal entity with its own assets and legal personality. For operators and PSPs in high-risk gaming, the important part is not the rebrand; it is the attempt to tighten licensing, control, and enforcement in one framework.

1. The proposal would create a new institution headed by a national director, with powers set out in law and meant to stay within statutory limits. In other words, the draft tries to stop administrative rules from creating obligations or sanctions that are not expressly written into legislation.
2. The bill covers concessions, authorizations, prizes, and the economic and financial regime of gambling activity. It says the creation of the new body will not automatically expand existing contracts: any additional activity would require the relevant authorization and payment of the applicable fee.
3. On fees, the draft keeps the current distribution of resources and seeks to clarify who is responsible for collecting and transferring them, while also setting criteria for how the fee base is calculated.
4. The text also draws a line between the national authority and departmental and municipal bodies, with the stated goal of reducing overlapping regulation. For PSPs, that usually matters more than the headline structure: one extra layer of oversight is manageable; two authorities claiming the same perimeter is where things get messy.
5. Enforcement is a central part of the reform. The bill provides for seizure of assets, preventive closure of premises, and blocking of unauthorized platforms. For platform blocking, it requires a reasoned resolution, immediate execution, ex officio review, and lifting of the measure once valid authorization or cessation of the irregular conduct is proven.

The proposal also distinguishes preventive measures from administrative sanctions and criminal consequences. Asset forfeiture would remain subject to a judicial decision in criminal proceedings, while any proceeds would keep their current social destination.