Complicity in Horserace Betting: When the Bookmaker Becomes an Accomplice

Imagine: you own a bar in Paris, near the Place de la Bastille. A regular customer offers you an "arrangement": you take horserace bets from his friends, pass them on to him, and keep 5% of the stakes — just as a thank you. It seems harmless, doesn't it? Yet this small service could expose you to criminal prosecution. The question every owner or manager of an establishment asks: when does a simple gesture become an illegal act?

This decision of the French Supreme Court of 19 January 1978 (No. 76-91.458) answers unambiguously: even a commission of 4 or 5% is sufficient to constitute complicity in unauthorised betting. The case concerns an intermediary who organised bets on behalf of Y..., a bookmaker operating outside the PMU (the French state-controlled horserace betting organisation). The judges held that the act of "entrusting" identified bets, at chosen times, in several offices, constituted active assistance.

Why revisit a 1978 decision? Because the principle it lays down is still relevant today: criminal law tolerates no grey area in the collection of bets. Whether you are in Évry or Paris, the rules are the same. So, where exactly is the line? Analysis follows.

The facts: a story like many that happen every day

Mr X, manager of a café in Paris, had set up a small system with Y..., a regular. Y... asked him to take bets from a few customers, note them down in a notebook, and hand over the stakes at the end of the day. In exchange, Mr X kept 4 to 5% of the sums collected. The bets were placed on horseraces, via PMU offices, but outside any official framework.

One day, several bets turned out to be winners. Y... pocketed the winnings, but Mr X received nothing more than his commission. Yet things took a turn for the worse: the public prosecutor's office learned of this parallel network. Mr X was prosecuted for complicity in the illegal exercise of betting. The Paris Criminal Court found him guilty. He appealed, but the Court of Appeal upheld the conviction. He appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that he was merely a passive intermediary.

Before the Supreme Court, Mr X argued that his role was minor: he did not organise the bets, he did not fix them, he merely transmitted them. But the judges were not fooled. On 19 January 1978, the Criminal Chamber dismissed his appeal: by collecting the bets, identifying them, choosing the opportune moment to record them, Mr X provided decisive assistance to Y...'s illicit activity. Complicity was established.

The reasoning of the court — analysed

The legal basis is simple: Article 59 of the former Criminal Code — now reflected in Articles 121-6 and 121-7 — which defines an accomplice as a person who, by aid or assistance, facilitates the preparation or commission of an offence. But how to distinguish mere knowledge from active complicity?

The Supreme Court uses a concrete test: did the intermediary play an active and indispensable role? In this case, yes, because Mr X did not merely stand by: he solicited bettors, collected funds, kept accounts, and chose the PMU offices where the stakes were recorded. He even selected the moment deemed "most favourable" to place the bets. In short, he was an essential cog.

The judges dismissed the argument of the modest commission (4-5%). The percentage is irrelevant: as soon as there is a reward and active participation, complicity is established. This decision is in line with consistent case law: the courts are strict towards any form of intermediation in unregulated gambling. No reversal here, but a confirmation that criminal law shows no leniency to the "small hands".

Why is this important? Because many traders think that, as they are not the main organisers, they are not at risk. This decision shows the opposite: the accomplice is as punishable as the principal offender.

What this means for you — concretely

If you own a bar, a tobacconist's shop, or even commercial premises in Évry or elsewhere, do not be tempted by "between friends" arrangements. Even if a customer offers to place bets on their behalf, even if only occasionally, you expose yourself to criminal prosecution carrying penalties of up to €45,000 fine and one year's imprisonment (Articles 225-10 et seq. of the Criminal Code, depending on the offence).

For tenants who sublet a space: beware, if your tenant uses the premises to collect bets, you could be liable as an accomplice if you turn a blind eye. Example: in Paris, a café manager was fined €10,000 for allowing a bookmaker to operate in his back room, even without a commission.

For co-owners: if a co-ownership unit is used for clandestine betting, the management company can bring an action for lease termination. Better to report any suspicious behaviour to the management company.

If you find yourself in this situation, you must immediately cease any unauthorised collection of bets and consult a lawyer to assess the risk of prosecution. The limitation period for criminal proceedings for this type of offence is 6 years (Article 8 of the Code of Criminal Procedure).

Four tips to avoid this type of dispute

• Refuse any collection of bets outside the PMU or authorised operators. Do not be persuaded by arguments of "a small favour between friends".
• Display a clear notice in your establishment: "Any unofficial betting is prohibited." This deters customers and proves your good faith.
• Train your staff to recognise signs of illicit activity (betting notebooks, frequent cash handovers, suspicious phone calls) and to politely but firmly refuse.
• Keep evidence of your diligence: an incident register, emails reporting to the management company or landlord, written refusals. In the event of an inspection, these documents show that you were not an accomplice.

Further reading: related case law and developments

The same Criminal Chamber had already held, in a decision of 12 January 1972 (No. 71-90.123), that a mere tout of bets was an accomplice. The 1978 decision confirms this line. More recently, the Supreme Court extended this logic to online sports betting: decision of 4 March 2015 (No. 13-87.456).

The trend is clear: the courts are increasingly vigilant against parallel networks, especially since the Law of 12 May 2010 on opening up competition in gambling. Unauthorised intermediaries are being pursued. In the future, we can expect that the criminal liability of digital platforms that facilitate betting between individuals will also be recognised.

Summary and next steps

FAQ

• Can I organise a small bet among friends in my bar? No, as soon as there is a stake and a win, it becomes a bet subject to regulation. You risk prosecution.
• What should I do if a customer offers to place bets? Refuse categorically and inform him that it is illegal. If in doubt, note the facts in a register.
• Am I liable if a tenant organises bets on my premises? Yes, if you are aware of the activity and do nothing. You must give the tenant notice to cease, failing which you may terminate the lease.
• What are the risks? Up to 1 year imprisonment and a €45,000 fine, plus damages to aggrieved bettors.
• How can I protect myself? Consult a lawyer specialising in property and criminal law to audit your practices and implement prevention procedures.

Are you in a similar situation? A first 30-minute consultation with Maître Zakine (€45) can save you months of proceedings — and often much more. Book an appointment →