Akin Gurlek’s New Illegal Betting Push: Could Players Themselves Face Criminal Charges?

Illegal betting has long been more than just a law-enforcement issue in Turkey. It is also seen as a broader economic and social problem. The spread of digital payment systems, social media promotion, and easy access to offshore platforms has made the market far more complex than it was in the past.

The debate returned to the spotlight after recent remarks from Justice Minister Akin Gurlek. His comments were widely read as a sign that Turkey may consider a tougher framework in which not only the organizers of illegal betting operations, but also the people who place bets, could face harsher legal consequences.

What Did Akin Gurlek Say About Illegal Betting?

The core of Gurlek’s message was that the current system is no longer enough. Under the existing model, the main legal pressure falls on those who run illegal betting schemes, move the money, provide the infrastructure, or promote the platforms.

Players, however, are not treated in the same way. That is the gap Gurlek focused on. In his view, the fight against illegal betting will remain incomplete unless the person who actually places the bet is also brought under a stricter criminal framework.

That makes this more than a political talking point. It opens the door to a real legal debate about whether Turkey should move from an administrative-penalty model to a system where the act of betting itself could trigger a criminal case.

Could Illegal Betting Become A Crime For Players In Turkey?

Legally, yes. Parliament could amend the law and create a new criminal offense covering people who place bets through illegal platforms.

At the moment, the system is built more around administrative sanctions. But if the law changes, illegal betting by players could move into the criminal justice system, meaning investigations, prosecutors, and court proceedings could become part of the picture.

So the real question is not simply whether penalties should be tougher. The bigger question is whether criminalizing players would actually solve the problem. This is where international examples become especially relevant.

What Would The Consequences Be?

If such a reform were adopted, the first major change would be procedural. Illegal betting by players would no longer be handled mainly as an administrative matter. It could become part of the criminal process, bringing with it investigations, questioning, and possible court judgments.

The second goal would be deterrence. Supporters of a tougher model argue that demand will fall if players themselves also face the risk of criminal punishment.

In practice, though, things are rarely that straightforward. Illegal betting markets are no longer limited to a few websites or local intermediaries. They now operate through mobile apps, private messaging groups, digital wallets, offshore licenses, and rapidly changing payment channels.

That means harsher penalties often push the market further underground rather than making it disappear. As long as demand remains, operators tend to find new ways to rebuild access.

International Examples Of Illegal Betting Enforcement

• Singapore: Singapore has one of the toughest models in the world. A person caught betting through an illegal operator can face a fine of up to S$10,000 or up to six months in prison. Even so, authorities still had to block more than 3,800 illegal gambling sites and over 145,000 illegal transactions by the end of 2024. The total value of blocked transactions reached roughly S$37 million. The lesson is clear: strict penalties do not make the market vanish, they only require constant enforcement.
• Japan: In Japan, online betting and online casino play can be treated as illegal even when the platform itself is licensed abroad. Simple gambling offenses can bring fines of up to 500,000 yen, while habitual gambling can lead to prison terms of up to three years. Despite that, estimates suggest that around 1.967 million people in Japan have used online casinos, with annual betting volume reaching about 1.2423 trillion yen. In other words, criminalization has not eliminated demand.
• Iran: Iran formally bans gambling and applies severe penalties. Playing can lead to one to six months in prison or up to 74 lashes, while operating gambling venues can bring six months to two years in prison. Yet studies still show that online gambling has not disappeared. In one study covering 3,252 participants, online gambling prevalence was measured at 8.9%, and 26.6% of players showed moderate to severe signs of problem gambling.
• Indonesia: Indonesia effectively operates under a full-ban model for online gambling. Yet even after authorities shut down more than 2 million illegal websites, reports indicate that over 3 million people were still involved in online gambling, with annual spending estimated at around $20 billion. This example, too, shows that site blocking and harsh penalties alone do not fully stop the market.

What Is The Most Effective Long-Term Solution?

Taken together, these cases point to one broad conclusion: raising penalties does not completely stop illegal betting. More often, it drives the activity deeper underground, where it continues through new payment routes, new domains, and more opaque digital channels.

That is why the more practical solution may not be total prohibition alone, but a state-controlled regulated market built on licensing, transparency, and strict oversight.

In such a model, users can be brought into a monitored system, financial flows can be tracked, and tax and compliance tools can actually work. Most importantly, the uncontrolled space that allows illegal networks to grow can be narrowed.

In the end, Gurlek’s remarks have opened the door to a bigger legal debate in Turkey. But international experience suggests that the real issue is not only how hard to punish illegal betting. It is how to manage the market in a way that actually reduces harm.