Negligent Violation of the Casino Act: Conviction for Operating Gambling Machines without Authorization

Facts

The appellant [X.] was convicted by the High Court of the Canton of Aargau of negligent violation of the Casino Act, as he operated three gambling machines in a game room in the Canton of Aargau without the required authorization. The appellant was responsible for the operation of the machines as managing director of the company [Z. GmbH] , which operated the game room.

The Federal Gaming Commission had found the appellant guilty of intentional violation of the Casino Act with a penalty order of May 23, 2007, and imposed a fine of 1,800 francs. The appellant requested a court judgment and was acquitted of the charge of violating the Casino Act by the President of the District Court of Kulm with a judgment of October 19, 2007.

The Federal Gaming Commission appealed this decision, and the High Court of the Canton of Aargau overturned the judgment of the President of the District Court of Kulm and remanded the case to him for further proceedings. The President of the District Court of Kulm again acquitted the appellant with a judgment of February 27, 2009, and the Federal Gaming Commission appealed again.

The High Court of the Canton of Aargau overturned the decision of the President of the District Court of Kulm with a judgment of May 12, 2010, and found the appellant guilty of negligent violation of the Casino Act. The appellant was fined 1,000 francs.

Considerations

The Federal Court dismissed the appellant's appeal. The lower court found the appellant guilty of negligent violation of the Casino Act for operating three gambling machines in a game room in the Canton of Aargau without the required authorization.

The Federal Court found that the appellant, as managing director of the company [Z. GmbH] , was responsible for the operation of the machines and had not obtained the required authorization. The appellant argued that he did not know the machines were not authorized and that he relied on official controls.

However, the Federal Court found that the appellant, as managing director, had a duty to obtain the necessary…