Bulgaria: Amendments to the Law on Gambling leads to diversion of investments for millions from Bulgaria

International Tax Review is part of Legal Benchmarking Limited, 1-2 Paris Garden, London, SE1 8ND

Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2026

Accessibility | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Modern Slavery Statement

Bulgaria: Amendments to the Law on Gambling leads to diversion of investments for millions from Bulgaria

pechilkova.jpg

Donka Pechilkova

According to a decision of the Sofia City Court, effectively from June 17 2013, a total of 22 sites for sports betting are forbidden by the State Gambling Committee. The reason is that they do not have the licence required by the Law on Gambling that entered into force last year. Among the online portals are the biggest betting sites in the world. The number of the blocked websites increases every two weeks, due to the new alternative websites that open daily. Officially the amendments, referring to hundreds of millions of leva and are not only connected with betting via the internet, but imposes an unprecedented censorship on the internet, comparable with that of countries like North Korea, China, Iran, Iraq, Syria and others.

The announcement of the forbidden sites list legally is treated as notice to the gambling companies to block the access to their sites from Bulgaria or to limit the acceptance of bets.

If the access is not stopped, the committee will then address the Sofia Regional Court to announce its verdict and if the court rules a decision in favour of the regulator, the ball then swings off to the internet suppliers who will have to ban access to the quoted sites.

The paradox is that in accordance with the Law on Gambling, the sites should have licences but at the same time there is no law frame that specifies what the procedure for issuing such licences is. Because of that, though there are deposited applications for the issuing of licences for online betting from big companies, the licensing procedure cannot start for a year now as the State Committee itself has not yet prepared what is necessary for the purpose of regulations to the law.

The fact is that this situation chased away companies that invested millions in the country, while in other European countries they sponsor, for example, football teams like Manchester United, Barcelona, Milan and others.

The conclusion is that in this way the state will stimulate with tens and even hundreds of millions of leva the illegal bookmakers throughout Bulgaria, which means that hundreds of millions of tax will not be delivered to the Bulgarian treasury.

Donka Pechilkova (donka.pechilkova@eurofast.eu)

Eurofast Global, Sofia Office

Tel: +359 2 988 69 77

Website: www.eurofast.eu

more across site & shared bottom lb ros

More from across our site

After joining Milbank from Akin Gump, the fund tax specialist discusses sponsor demand, practice building, and the tax challenges facing asset managers
Partner payouts could also be reduced by a fifth, it has been reported
There is no logical reason not to extend an exemption from EU CFC rules to multinationals headquartered in side-by-side jurisdictions, USCIB said
While rarely the sole driver of a combination, tax is becoming an increasingly important part of firms' efforts to keep up with client expectations
New research, which suggests LLMs can silently corrupt complex documents, should alert tax and legal teams relying on AI to handle iterative drafting and compliance workflows
Maintaining increased funding for HMRC is a ‘high possibility’ if he becomes PM, ITR has also heard
Awards
ITR is delighted to reveal all the shortlisted nominees for the 2026 Europe Tax Awards
The firm has hired a team of private client lawyers from Withers to launch in New York and Connecticut, though ITR analysis suggests it faces stiff competition
The ability of tax authorities to receive and analyse data is becoming ‘quite advanced’, warns Stuart Lang, head of EY’s compliance co-sourcing solution
The Court of Appeal ruling clarifies that treaty benefits are not abusive where transactions are commercially driven, providing greater certainty on “main purpose” anti-avoidance tests
Gift this article