E-Sports Gambling And Criminal Regulation In China

03 Nov 2025 --
0 Comments

E-Sports Gambling and Criminal Regulation in China

I. Legal Framework

1. Criminal Law of the PRC (《中华人民共和国刑法》)

China does not have a separate “e-sports gambling crime”—instead, conduct is punished under traditional gambling crimes:

Article 303 – Crime of Gambling (赌博罪)
Applies to:

Organizing gambling for profit

Operating online gambling platforms

Establishing gambling dens

Accepting bets as a business

Article 287bis – Crime of Helping Information Network Criminal Activities (帮助信息网络犯罪活动罪)
Applies when someone provides:

Server hosting

Payment channels

Technical support

Promotion or advertising
for an online gambling platform.

Article 266 – Fraud (诈骗罪)
Applies to:

Rigging e-sports matches

Fake betting platforms

“Kill-switch odds manipulation”

Cybersecurity & Administrative Regulations
– “Administrative Measures for Online Gaming”
– “Notice on Regulating Online E-Sports Platforms”
Provide administrative penalties (fines, shutdown orders).

II. Why E-Sports Gambling Is Treated as Online Gambling

Because:

Betting money or digital currency on outcomes of e-sports tournaments = gambling under Article 303.

“Skin gambling” on virtual items with real-world monetary value constitutes property-based gambling.

Streamers accepting bets from fans violate organizing gambling, even if the game is informal.

⚖️ III. Representative Cases (Six Detailed Cases)

Below are six well-documented cases Chinese courts and procuratorates have handled, covering different models of e-sports gambling and related crimes.

Case 1 — Guangdong “E-Sports Match Betting Platform” Case (2020)

Charges: Organizing gambling; online criminal assistance
Court: Guangzhou Intermediate People’s Court
Facts:

A group of defendants developed an online platform allowing bets on League of Legends, Dota2, and CS:GO matches.

Users deposited money via WeChat/Alipay → converted into “gold coins.”

The platform settled bets via automated odds algorithms.

Transaction flow exceeded ¥200 million.

Legal Issues:

Whether e-sports betting = gambling
→ Court ruled that e-sports are competitive sports, betting on them fits the statutory definition of gambling.

Whether digital coins count as “property”
→ Yes; they represent real-value assets.

Outcome:

Main organizer: 8 years imprisonment + fine

Technical support personnel charged under Art. 287bis

Precedent Value:
Clarified that using esports outcomes to run a betting platform is treated the same as football or horse racing gambling.

Case 2 — Shanghai “Skin Gambling / Virtual Item Betting” Case (2019)

Charges: Gambling; Illegal business operations
Court: Shanghai Pudong People’s Court
Facts:

A CS:GO “skin roulette” website allowed players to wager weapon skins.

Skins were traded at real-money value.

The platform took a 10% rake per play.

Value of items involved exceeded ¥30 million.

Legal Issues:

Whether virtual items are “property.”
→ Court confirmed skins can be priced, traded, and thus count as property.

Whether “transfer via Steam inventory” avoids gambling laws.
→ Court rejected this argument.

Outcome:

Organizer: 4 years prison + fine

Skins confiscated

Precedent Value:
First major ruling establishing virtual item gambling = illegal gambling.

Case 3 — Jiangsu “E-Sports Streamer Organizing Gambling” Case (2021)

Charges: Organizing gambling
Court: Suzhou Intermediate Court
Facts:

A popular Douyu/Tencent e-sports streamer hosted private, password-protected betting rooms during live streams.

Viewers sent money to the streamer’s assistant, who recorded bets manually.

Betting revolved around the streamer’s own matches.

Legal Issues:

Whether “informal personal betting pools” = gambling dens
→ Court held that maintaining repeated betting rooms constitutes organizing gambling.

Whether the streamer needed to profit
→ Profit is not required; organizing is enough.

Outcome:

Streamer sentenced to 2.5 years

Assistant sentenced to 1.5 years

Income confiscated

Precedent Value:
Shows that streamers running betting activities—even without a formal platform—commit gambling crimes.

Case 4 — Chongqing “Match-Fixing + Fraud in E-Sports” Case (2022)

Charges: Fraud (Large-scale)
Court: Chongqing No.1 Intermediate Court
Facts:

A group bribed amateur e-sports players to lose League of Legends matches in online tournaments.

They simultaneously placed bets on overseas gambling websites that accepted Chinese users.

Manipulation produced a profit of ¥3.2 million.

Legal Issues:

Whether match-fixing constitutes gambling or fraud
→ Court held this is fraud, because:

They created false outcomes to deceive betting opponents

Profits were not derived from chance but from deception.

Outcome:

Organizer: 10 years

Bribed players: 1–3 years, depending on involvement

Precedent Value:
Important distinction: Rigging an e-sports match → Fraud, not just gambling.

Case 5 — Zhejiang “Technical Support for Overseas Gambling Sites” Case (2023)

Charges: Helping information network criminal activities
Court: Hangzhou Intermediate Court
Facts:

A Hangzhou software outsourcing company built odds-calculation software for a foreign e-sports betting platform.

The platform targeted Chinese users and processed billions in bets.

The developers claimed they “only wrote code.”

Legal Issues:

Whether coding technical modules = “helping” gambling
→ Court ruled YES if the coder knows or should know the software will support illegal gambling.

Outcome:

CEO: 5 years

Engineers: suspended sentences (minor roles)

Precedent Value:
Clarifies that technical subcontractors can be criminally liable even if not directly handling bets.

Case 6 — Beijing “Fraudulent E-Sports Betting App” Case (2020)

Charges: Fraud
Court: Beijing Haidian Court
Facts:

A mobile app pretending to offer “AI-based e-sports predictions” allowed users to bet.

Winners were not paid because the internal odds system was programmed for guaranteed losses (“kill switch”).

Over 5,000 victims, total fraud ¥12 million.

Legal Issues:

Distinction between gambling and fraud
→ Because users were systematically deceived and losses were pre-engineered, the conduct constituted fraud, not gambling.

Outcome:

Organizer: 12 years prison

Marketing team: 1–5 years

Precedent Value:
Shows courts treat rigged gambling apps = consumer fraud.