Italy, unpaid PREU: what the Supreme Court of Cassation says
Failure to remit sums intended for the Single Treasury Levy (Prelievo Unico Erariale – PREU) is back in the spotlight in Italy’s state-regulated gambling sector. A recent decision by the Supreme Court of Cassation, according to specialist press reports, has upheld an embezzlement conviction against the director of a company that manages gaming machines connected to the online network.
The case is particularly significant because it confirms an approach already established in the Supreme Court of Cassation’s case law: sums collected through gaming machines cannot be treated as ordinary company cash when they include amounts intended for the Treasury. In certain circumstances, failure to remit the sums due to the licensee may have criminal implications and constitute embezzlement.
For managers, operators, licence holders, and businesses throughout the supply chain, the issue is therefore not merely a matter of tax or contract. Proper management of the PREU is essential for compliance, traceability, and accountability in the collection of public revenue derived from gambling.
PREU’s role in Italy’s gambling sector
The PREU is the tax levied on amusement machines with cash prizes, particularly Amusement With Prizes (AWP) machines and Video Lottery Terminals (VLTs), and is regulated by Article 110 of the Consolidated Law on Public Security (Testo Unico delle Leggi di Pubblica Sicurezza – TULPS). AWPs are the so-called “new slot” machines, meaning amusement machines with cash prizes. They are found in bars, amusement arcades, and authorised premises. VLTs, by contrast, are video lottery terminals installed in authorised gaming halls. Compared with AWPs, they operate through a central system connected to the licensee and are subject to specific technical rules and controls.
In practical terms, the PREU represents the share of gambling revenue intended for the Treasury. When a machine accepts wagers, the proceeds must be allocated according to the rules governing the sector: part goes to winnings, part to the remuneration of the operators involved, and part to the tax levy due to the State.
The central role of the PREU in the gaming machine system is also confirmed by documentation from the Italian Customs and Monopolies Agency (Agenzia delle Dogane e dei Monopoli – ADM), the authority responsible for regulating and overseeing the public gambling sector.
Regulatory framework
To understand why failure to pay the PREU may have criminal relevance, it is necessary to start with the way the gaming machine sector is regulated in Italy. Machines offering cash prizes are not simply commercial instruments: they fall within the scope of Article 110 TULPS and operate within an authorised and supervised supply chain connected to the State’s online network.
The PREU forms part of this system and is governed by Decree-Law No. 269 of 30 September 2003, converted into Law 326/2003. The PREU represents a share of the revenue generated by AWPs and VLTs intended for the Treasury. For this reason, the sums collected by operators cannot be treated entirely as company cash: part of those sums serves a public purpose and must be properly accounted for and remitted in accordance with the supply chain rules.
The key provision in criminal law is Article 314 of the Criminal Code, which governs the offence of embezzlement. The provision applies to a public official or a person entrusted with a public service who misappropriates money or property over which they have control by virtue of their office or position. In the context of public gambling, the decisive point is precisely this: whether the person who manages or holds the sums collected via the machines can be said to hold a position of significance for criminal law purposes, and whether the failure to pay the amount allocated to the PREU can be classified as misappropriation.
Why failure to pay can become embezzlement
The most sensitive issue concerns the distinction between a simple financial default and conduct that is relevant from a criminal law perspective. In a normal commercial relationship, failure to pay a sum due may give rise to civil or contractual liability. In the public gambling sector, however, the situation is different: the operator acts within a regulated system, in which the collection of funds via gaming machines is linked to a public licence and a tax levy in favour of the State.
This principle was clarified by the Joint Sections of the Court of Cassation in judgment No. 6087/2021, according to which a manager or operator who retains gambling proceeds, including the part intended for the PREU, without remitting them to the licensee, may be liable for the offence of embezzlement.
From this perspective, the sums collected via AWP and VLT machines cannot always be treated as mere company cash. Where they include amounts due to the treasury, failure to pay these sums may go beyond the scope of commercial debt and constitute a criminal offence.
This article was first published on the Italian SiGMA News page on 22 June 2026.
Be part of the action! Join the world’s biggest iGaming community with SiGMA’s Top 10 News countdown. Subscribe HERE for weekly updates, insider insights, and exclusive subscriber-only offers.
