The legal position on casino payments in Austria

Anyone in Austria who deposits at an online casino moves within a legal framework with three layers: the federal gambling monopoly, the rules for banks and payment service providers, and an amendment that is before parliament as a government bill. The payment routes themselves are the usual ones: card, eps, bank transfer, wallets and crypto. This page deals with the legal side of the same payments: what applies today, what is planned and where there is no answer yet.

Today, § 3 GSpG with the gambling monopoly applies, as does § 52 (1) no. 10 GSpG, which covers credit institutions only within narrow limits. According to government bill RV 594 d.B., a public warning list, a ban on taking part in payment flows for listed providers (“payment blocking”) and a central limit register are planned. As of 09.10.2026 the bill has not been passed: it is with the Finance Committee, and deliberations have not yet begun. Everything that comes from it is therefore described as planned, with “would” or “is to”.

The casinos whose cashiers for Austria are analysed here are Spinanga, Lunubet, Bassbet, Spinrollz and Kingmaker. All the tracked brands list Austria with the currency EUR in the registration country list. Their AT cashiers list eps, card, bank transfer, Revolut, MiFinity and cryptocurrencies for deposits. Paysafecard and PayPal are not listed in the AT cashier of any of the tracked brands, neither for deposits nor for withdrawals.

IGambling monopoly under § 3 GSpG

The starting point is § 3 GSpG. The right to conduct games of chance is, unless the act provides otherwise, reserved to the federal state; the section expressly calls this reservation the “gambling monopoly” (Glücksspielmonopol). Online gambling falls under the term electronic lotteries in the GSpG.

Two statements by the Federal Ministry of Finance (BMF) classify foreign providers. First, according to the BMF, a licence from another EU or EEA state does not entitle a provider to offer games of chance in Austria. That answers searches such as “online casino mit deutscher lizenz” or “online casino österreich mit lizenz”: a licence from a neighbouring country does not replace the Austrian one. Second, according to the BMF, taking part in foreign electronic lotteries from within Austria is not permitted either. § 52 (5) GSpG makes participation in electronic lotteries without a licence subject to an administrative fine where the stakes are placed from within Austria.

For the cashiers of the tracked casinos, the monopoly makes no technical difference: payments run through the same cards, banks and wallets as other online payments. Visa and Mastercard are listed in both directions at all the tracked brands, at Spinanga, Lunubet, Spinrollz and Kingmaker in the cashier as “Pay by Card” and “Withdraw to Card”. Legally, the payment method does not change how the provider is classified; what matters is solely whether it holds an Austrian licence.

IILicences of the casinos

None of the tracked brands names an Austrian licence in the available information. What is known about their licences differs by source, and the differences are set out side by side here.

Spinanga. According to Casino.Guru no licence, according to LCB no licence, according to AskGamblers PAGCOR and Anjouan Gaming Board. AskGamblers names Stellar Ltd as operator, LCB names Liernin Enterprises LTD. Austria (EUR) is in the registration country list, and the terms 2.3 in the live version v1.12 do not list Austria among the excluded jurisdictions.

Lunubet. According to Casino.Guru no gambling licence is known; according to the same source the operator is Casolinia Group. Austria (AT, EUR) is in the operator’s registration country list.

Bassbet. The operator’s text block names PAGCOR with Offshore Gaming License no. 22-0025; according to Casino.Guru, by contrast, no gambling licence is known. The operator is Liernin Enterprises LTD in the Marshall Islands, reg. no. 126211; payment processing is handled by Mirata Services LTD in Cyprus (HE 438098). Austria (AT, EUR) is in the registration country list and not among the excluded jurisdictions of the terms in version 1.12 of 19.08.2026. In the cashier, eps is enabled only for the country AT. As at all the tracked brands, PayPal is not listed in its AT cashier.

Spinrollz. According to Casino.Guru no licence is known; the operator is Casolinia Group. Austria with the currency EUR is in the registration country list and not among the excluded jurisdictions of terms 2.3.

Kingmaker. According to Casino.Guru no gambling licence is known; the operator is Casolinia Group here as well. Austria (AT, EUR) is in the registration country list, and terms 2.3 do not list Austria among the excluded countries.

Two details from this information matter on the payment side. First, at Bassbet the payment is processed not by the operator itself but by a separate payment service provider; anyone looking for a debit on a bank statement may find a name there other than the casino’s. Second, all the tracked brands accept Austria as a country of registration, but their AT cashiers are shorter than the global method lists of third-party sources.

Bank transfer, by contrast, is listed in both directions at all the tracked brands, marked as SEPA at Spinanga, Lunubet and Bassbet. According to Lunubet’s terms, it is the fallback when the deposit method is not available for withdrawals; eps is listed for deposits only in all the tracked AT cashiers.

IIIBanks today: § 52 (1) no. 10 GSpG

For banks, the current GSpG contains its own penalty provision. § 52 (1) GSpG covers credit institutions that forward player payments to providers of prohibited gambling. The offence is narrowly defined, however: a credit institution is liable only for knowingly forwarding payments where this happens “im vorsätzlichen unmittelbaren Zusammenwirken mit dem Veranstalter oder Anbieter”, in intentional direct collusion with the operator or provider. For offences under § 52 (1) nos. 2 to 11, including no. 10, the act provides for a fine of up to 22 000 euros.

From a player’s point of view this means: today there is no general obligation for banks to block payments to unlicensed casinos, and no official list they would have to follow. A bank transfer, a card payment or an eps transfer to a casino is, for the bank, initially an ordinary payment order. eps is in the AT cashier of all the tracked brands, for deposits only; it is approved in the online banking of your own bank.

The Payment Services Act gives banks some room. Under § 73 ZaDiG 2018, a payment service provider may refuse an authorised payment order if executing it would breach a legal provision. If it refuses, it must inform the user and state the reasons, unless a legal provision prohibits this. A refused payment is therefore not necessarily a technical error, and the bank is the first place to ask for the reason.

It also matters what the ZaDiG does not cover. Reimbursement by the payer’s bank by the end of the following business day applies only to payment transactions that were not authorised. A deposit that the player triggers in the cashier and approves in online banking is authorised. There is no information on a legal basis for reversing authorised payments to unlicensed casinos via bank or card.

Before a payment can get stuck at the bank at all, it has to reach the method’s lower limit in the cashier. Amounts differ by casino and method; at Lunubet the AT cashier states higher values than the FAQ. Knowing the minimum deposit at each casino makes a refused payment easier to place: if the amount is below it, the cashier refuses it, not the bank.

For withdrawals, the casinos’ own rules also apply. All the tracked brands require the payment method used to belong to the player; Spinanga and Lunubet explicitly pay out only to accounts in the player’s own name. Legally, that is a contractual condition of the provider, not a requirement of the GSpG.

IVPlanned: payment blocking under RV 594 d.B.

Government bill RV 594 d.B. aims to change the relationship between banks and unlicensed providers fundamentally. The draft of a new § 56e GSpG is headed “Zahlungssperren bei verbotenen Ausspielungen („Payment-Blocking“)”, payment blocks for prohibited gambling. At the same time, the current no. 10 in § 52 (1) GSpG is to be deleted. According to the explanatory notes, a staged procedure under § 56e is to replace liability for intentional collusion.

The list. The planned system is based on a warning list. Under § 51a (2), the Office for Combating Fraud (Amt für Betrugsbekämpfung) is to keep a list that can be queried automatically on the internet; the explanatory notes call it a “blacklist”. It is to be provided in a form that can be integrated into an API. The warnings are to contain features that allow payment service providers to recognise affected transactions, for banks “insbesondere: IBAN”, in particular the IBAN. Public warnings about unauthorised providers are also to be allowed to name bank details. As of 09.10.2026 no such list exists; which providers or payments would one day be on it is open.

The ban. Taking part in payment flows for prohibited gambling published under § 51a (2) is to be prohibited. The term “payment flows” (Zahlungsverkehr) is to be understood broadly and, according to the explanatory notes, to cover “insbesondere Ein- und Auszahlungen”, in particular deposits and withdrawals. For players this is the central point: the plan is not only to stop deposits but also withdrawals from a listed provider. Where payment flows cannot be handled separately by offer, taking part is also to be prohibited for the provider’s other services.

The addressees. Notification and the order to stop are to go to those involved in the payment flows, in particular credit or financial services institutions. According to the explanatory notes, these parties are not to be limited to payment service providers within the meaning of the ZaDiG 2018; operators of payment systems and similar companies are in any case to be covered as well. The draft names no individual payment brands, and there is no information on a legal classification of prepaid cards or wallets. In the AT cashiers of the tracked casinos the question does not arise for prepaid anyway, because Paysafecard is not listed there.

The procedure. The Office for Combating Fraud is to be responsible for notification and the order where there are indications of a breach. The party involved in the payment is to be given at most two weeks to respond, and stopping participation is foreseen within three bank working days. If the party has not stopped after the deadline, the office is to order it by decision (Bescheid). Anyone acting against such a decision is to be fined up to 1 000 000 euros under § 56e (6). Appeals against the stop decision are not to have suspensive effect.

The bank. § 56e is to be a domestic provision within the meaning of § 73 ZaDiG 2018, i.e. a basis on which banks may refuse payment orders. A payment order refused because of § 56e is not to be open to correction. Delayed or unexecuted transactions due to a negligently mistaken suspicion are not to give rise to damages claims. With an eps transfer, it is your own bank that executes the order approved in online banking.

The purpose. The explanatory notes are clear here: the protective purpose is to interrupt payment flows, “Der Schutz des einzelnen Spielers ist durch die Norm nicht intendiert”, the protection of the individual player is not intended by the provision. In the draft, payment blocking is therefore not an instrument from which players could derive claims against their bank.

VPlanned: limit register and a check before every deposit

The second element of the amendment concerns not banks but licensed providers. According to the government bill, a central register is to implement a cross-provider deposit limit, called the “Limitregister” in the draft text. The BMF describes the same project as a digital supervisory system that is to implement a central, cross-operator deposit limit.

One detail in the explanatory notes is decisive for how a deposit would work: providers are to be required to query the limit register before every deposit. A deposit would then only be executed after it has been checked that the player has not yet reached the limit across all providers. The draft staggers the deposit limits by age, with a weekly limit for younger players and a monthly limit after that. Raising self-chosen limits is to be subject to a waiting period, and above an age threshold the limit is to be raisable in individual cases where creditworthiness is sufficient.

Waiting times after a deposit concern an amount that has left the bank account but has not yet been credited to the gaming account. Among the tracked casinos, only Spinanga and Lunubet give a time: crediting in the vast majority of cases “fast sofort” (almost instantly), with up to two hours possible. Bassbet, Spinrollz and Kingmaker give no information on this.

Like payment blocking, the limit register is only planned as of 09.10.2026. Under the draft it concerns providers that hold a licence in Austria. The cashiers of the tracked casinos today have minimum and maximum amounts per deposit and VIP-dependent withdrawal limits, but no cross-provider deposit limit. At Spinanga, the terms state that the operator sets minimum and maximum amounts at its own discretion.

VIStatus of the legislative process

In parliament the GSpG amendment is listed as item XXVIII/I 594, as government bill 594 d.B. As of 09.10.2026 it is with the Finance Committee, and deliberations have not yet begun. Nothing has therefore been passed: not the warning list, not payment blocking, not the network blocks, not the limit register, and not the deletion of § 52 (1) no. 10 either.

The draft text names a date for entry into force: §§ 51a, 56c, 56d and 56e are to enter into force “mit Ablauf des 31. Dezember 2026”, at the end of 31 December 2026. The parliamentary press service and the BMF describe the same point in time as “from 1 January 2027”. Both describe a plan that requires a vote in the National Council. In § 56c the draft also provides for blocking orders against hosting, caching, search engine and internet access services, i.e. network blocks. According to the BMF, the amendment is to secure the licensed market with payment blocking, blacklisting and network blocks; according to the BMF, providers that have so far been unlicensed are to have to stop their offer from 1 January 2027 in order to apply for an online licence.

It remains open how the planned rules would apply to payment routes beyond the classic bank. The explanatory notes expressly do not limit the parties involved in payment flows to payment service providers within the meaning of the ZaDiG 2018. Whether and how payments in cryptocurrencies would be covered is not stated expressly in the draft, and there is no information on a tax classification of casino payments in crypto either.

It is also open what the draft does with the penalty provision for players in § 52 (5). The wording of the bill is not clear at this point, so only the current version is given here: taking part in electronic lotteries without a licence is subject to an administrative fine where the stakes are placed from within Austria. For all statements on the amendment: if the status changes in the Finance Committee or in the plenary, the tense of this description changes too.