What you should know now – and why the Federal Court of Justice’s ruling could be groundbreaking for many affected parties: On March 6, 2025, the Federal Court of Justice (case no. III ZR 137/24) issued a ruling that is likely to have significance far beyond the specific case decided. The judges addressed the question of whether a company is liable for fraudulent acts by its board of directors – specifically, whether a Ponzi scheme set up by a company officer establishes piercing the corporate veil to hold the company personally liable.
The court’s response:
Yes, the company is liable. This applies even if the affected investors never had direct contact with the company. The basis for this decision is Section 31 of the German Civil Code (BGB), which regulates so-called directors’ liability – that is, the attribution of breaches of duty committed by legal representatives on behalf of the company.
What does this mean in concrete terms – and why is it also relevant for victims of gambling?
The ruling could set a precedent for numerous lawsuits against illegal online gambling providers – especially when the platform is backed by complex corporate structures based abroad.
A key problem in such cases is often:
Players don’t know exactly which company they’re dealing with. The operators conceal their identities or process payments through third parties. Lawsuits often fail because no direct link to the actual perpetrator can be established. This is where the recent Federal Court of Justice (BGH) ruling comes in: It shows that a direct contract or contact is not necessarily required to enforce claims for damages – what is crucial is the active participation of a company member in an unlawful business model.
Parallels between pyramid schemes and illegal online gambling
At first glance, pyramid schemes and online gambling appear to be different topics – however, structurally there are clear similarities.
- In both cases, the model is based on an unstable system that thrives on continuous inflows of money.
- In a pyramid scheme, the money of new investors flows directly to the previous ones – in illegal gambling, stakes are collected without a legal basis, often without transparent structures or licenses.
- The economic substance is lacking, and the operation is mostly carried out from abroad – in violation of German law (see § 4 GlüStV 2021).
It is not uncommon for payment service providers, white-label providers or technical platform operators to appear as supposedly “uninvolved third parties” – but they too can be held liable if they knowingly support the system.
What does this mean for those affected?
Lawyer István Cocron, who has represented victims of illegal online gambling platforms for many years, sees the Federal Court of Justice (BGH) ruling as an important signal: “ The ruling shows that even second-tier companies can be held liable – such as technical providers, payment processors, or operators of white-label casinos. Anyone who contributes to maintaining an illegal system can be held liable under Section 31 of the German Civil Code (BGB) – even without direct customer contact. ”
Check your claims now
Anyone who has played at unlicensed online casinos in recent years and suffered losses should see the current Federal Court of Justice ruling as an opportunity:
✅ Even complex corporate structures are vulnerable to attack.
✅ Participating bodies can trigger liability for the company
✅ Direct contract with the injured party not mandatory. The Cocron law firm advises affected parties nationwide – and helps enforce claims against gambling providers and their accomplices.
