A German investigation into Platincasino is drawing attention to Malta in a widening dispute over illegal online gambling, unpaid taxes, regulatory oversight and the enforcement of court judgments across borders. What began as a German criminal investigation has now raised broader questions for the Maltese licensing framework and the responsibilities of a regulator whose licences are used by operators serving international markets.
The immediate trigger is the #casinosecrets investigation by a multi-country investigative consortium involving German security researcher Lilith Wittmann. According to Wittmann, internal documents from the Malta Gaming Authority (MGA) identify Frankfurt businessman Thomas Kalman as the ultimate beneficial owner of Red Rhino Limited, the Maltese company through which Platincasino operated under an MGA licence. The investigation traces the business from Malta to Curaçao, where the brand, domains and player database were sold to Latiform B.V. in 2023 for €6 million. Wittmann argues that important operational links continued after the formal sale.
The figures involved are substantial, but require careful qualification. The €250 million figure cited in the investigation is an estimate of allegedly unpaid German gambling tax for 2023–2025, calculated by the journalists rather than established by a court. It assumes that 85% of players were German and uses reported player losses to estimate the alleged shortfall. Separately, German prosecutors have put the alleged tax loss for 2024 alone at €77.6 million. In September, authorities searched 11 properties, arrested a main suspect and secured around €82 million in assets. Germany’s gambling regulator, the Gemeinsame Glücksspielbehörde der Länder (GGL), confirmed that the investigation concerns Platincasino.
The German regulatory history predates the latest raids. In 2023, the GGL identified Red Rhino as an illegal gambling provider and imposed a €50,000 coercive fine because an enforceable prohibition on its German offer had not been complied with. The regulator also targeted payment services connected to the operation. The significance for Malta is that a Maltese gambling licence did not give Red Rhino permission to operate in Germany. Since July 2021, providers have needed the relevant German authorisation to offer online gambling.
This is where the dispute with the MGA becomes important. Responding to questions from The Shift, the Maltese regulator rejected a blanket description of cross-border activity by MGA-licensed operators as “illegal gambling”. It stressed that applicants are assessed for suitability, funding, business operations, technical systems and anti-money-laundering controls, while licensees remain subject to risk-based supervision and enforcement powers. The MGA also pointed to EU treaty freedoms and Court of Justice principles. However, its response did not directly address the alleged €250 million tax shortfall, the documents reportedly extracted from its systems, or what regulatory action, if any, was taken concerning Red Rhino.
The dispute then escalated into an unusual legal battle in Germany. The MGA sought an injunction against Wittmann after she obtained documents from its online systems and publicly accused the regulator of creating “organized crime enablement schemes”. On 24 September, the Berlin Regional Court II partly upheld and partly overturned the requested measures. Wittmann remains prohibited from accessing the MGA system again, but the court allowed her to provide documents she had already obtained to journalists and investigators and allowed the disputed statements to remain. The ruling did not establish that her method of obtaining access was lawful. However, German reporting notes that the court considered her conduct capable of falling within the scope of Germany’s computer-hacking offence.
On a broader legal front, German courts have for years dealt with claims by players seeking repayment of losses from online casinos that lacked a German licence. In May, following the Court of Justice of the European Union ruling in C-440/23, FB v European Lotto and Betting Ltd and Deutsche Lotto- und Sportwetten Ltd of 16 April 2026, the German Federal Court of Justice (BGH) designated I ZR 216/25 as a lead-decision case concerning whether an online casino that lacked the required German licence must reimburse players’ losses. Following hearings in September, judgments in I ZR 216/25 and I ZR 78/25 are scheduled for 28 January 2027. The decisions could provide greater clarity on when German players can recover losses from operators that lacked the necessary German licence.
The issue could gain further prominence as the Platincasino investigation brings renewed attention to Germany’s enforcement of its gambling rules and the cross-border activities of Malta-linked operators. While Malta’s Bill 55, concerning the enforcement of foreign judgments against licensed gambling companies, remains a related point of contention, the German proceedings signal that the courts are becoming an increasingly important battleground in the dispute over the legal consequences of unlicensed online gambling.
Platincasino therefore sits at the intersection of several pressures on Malta: German enforcement against unlicensed gambling, questions about cross-border regulatory oversight, litigation over player losses and an EU-level dispute over the enforcement of judgments. None of this establishes the allegations against the individuals or companies involved. But as German investigations and court proceedings continue, Malta’s role in the international online-gambling chain is becoming harder to separate from the wider debate over how effectively a largely national regulatory system can supervise an industry that operates across borders.
Dr Lina Klesper is an International Legal Assistant at PKF Malta
