The $10 minimum-deposit casino offer in Australia: where $10 actually goes, and what it does not get you

Updated September 2026

Licensed

Available in US

Fast payouts

18+ Only

A $10 minimum-deposit casino advertises itself as the easy entry point — a small banknote, an evening’s worth of pokies, no big commitment. In Australia that framing collapses the moment you ask the obvious next question: who is taking the deposit, under which licence, and what happens if something goes wrong. No state or territory issues a licence for online casino games or online pokies. Every site offering a $10 minimum for that product is an offshore operator of the kind the Australian Communications and Media Authority issues formal warnings about. The dollar figure is real; what it buys is something else.

The rest of this page works through what is actually on offer when an Australian sees a “$10 minimum deposit casino” — what such a deposit would clear through, what consumer protection does and does not apply, what the ACMA has done to the brands running these offers, and what the legal land-based alternative looks like for someone who genuinely wants to play a few dollars on a pokie in Australia.

Current as of 23 September 2026 · Licence claims, ACMA actions and banking terms verified against the ACMA, AUSTRAC and the Reserve Bank of Australia as published.

Responsible play and the reader’s first move

The fastest way to lose the thread of this page is to start with the offer. The slowest, and the right one, is to start with the reader who is weighing one.

Most people who search for a $10 minimum deposit casino are not problem gamblers. They are players with a small bankroll who want a low-risk way to spend an evening. The reason this page leads with responsible-play scaffolding is not moralising; it is arithmetic. The same safeguards that protect someone whose gambling has slipped out of control are the safeguards that decide whether a $10 deposit at an offshore site can be reversed, traced or reclaimed, and most of them do not apply offshore at all. Reading them once, before the marketing pages start making sense, is the cheapest hour a player can spend.

If any of the thinking on this page is starting to affect sleep, mood or money beyond the $10 in question, the right next step is to step away from the offshore sites entirely and use the Australian-licensed tools that do reach you.

Gambling Help Online runs the National Gambling Helpline on 1800 858 858, free and 24/7, with webchat at Gambling Help Online for people who would rather type than talk. The line is staffed by counsellors, not salespeople, and it is the one number on this page worth memorising.

BetStop, the National Self-Exclusion Register, has been live since August 2023. Registering excludes you from every Australian-licensed online and phone wagering service at once. It does not bind offshore casino sites — they are not connected to BetStop, and the register cannot exclude you from a site the regulator does not regulate. For someone whose $10 deposit habit has become a worry, BetStop still has work to do: it removes the licensed channels that compete for the same dollar, and that is often where the loss habit actually sits.

Australia’s banks run their own layer of protection on top of this. ANZ, Commonwealth Bank and Westpac all let a customer activate a gambling block in their banking app. The blocks refuse authorisation of transactions that arrive coded under the merchant category “Betting/Casino Gambling” on eligible cards. The block is a courtesy from the bank, not a guarantee: the banks themselves warn that not every gambling-coded transaction will be stopped, and some non-gambling purchases may be caught in error. ANZ’s block also has a cooling-off — once you turn it on, removing it again requires a 48-hour wait. That delay is a feature, not a bug: it exists so that the impulse to undo the block runs out of steam before the action goes through.

A note on what the offshore $10 site does not give you. Australian consumer protection law — the Australian Consumer Law, the ePayments Code, the bank’s dispute process — applies to entities that operate in Australia or hold an Australian financial-services licence. A Curaçao-registered casino running out of an office none of these regulators can reach is none of those things. There is no Australian complaints body to write to, no ePayments Code arbitrator, no AFCA case to file if a withdrawal is refused. The only Australian body with a remit over that site is the ACMA, and the ACMA’s tools are blocking, warning and investigation — not refunds. A $10 balance stranded on a site the ACMA has just ordered blocked is a $10 loss with no Australian-side path to recovery. That is the structural reason the responsible-play scaffolding exists at the top of this page, not the bottom.

How a $10 deposit would actually move

The offshore site quotes $10. Something in the player’s Australian bank has to deliver it. The route a $10 deposit would take — if any route would accept it — runs through Australian retail payments rails whose mechanics the offshore site inherits without changing.

PayID and Osko instant transfers

The New Payments Platform opened to the Australian public on 13 February 2018. It is owned by New Payments Platform Australia Ltd, a non-profit whose thirteen shareholders include the Reserve Bank of Australia and the four major banks. Two of the products that run on it matter to a $10 deposit.

PayID is the addressing layer. Instead of a BSB and account number, the payer enters a piece of information the recipient has linked to their account — a phone number, an email address, an ABN, or in some cases a unique PayID string. As of April 2025 more than 25 million PayID identifiers had been registered across the platform. The killer detail, from the payer’s side, is that PayID displays the name on the receiving account before the transfer is sent. Australian Payments Plus, the platform’s operator, uses that fact as a warning signal: a PayID displayed against an illegal-gambling site is, by AP+’s own guidance, almost certainly a scam. That warning is aimed at the deposit, not the withdrawal — it is telling the payer that the offshore casino is not the kind of counterparty a normal Australian bank transfer is designed for.

Osko is the settlement layer. Once the PayID is confirmed, the funds move through Osko to the recipient’s bank in under a minute, 24/7, including weekends and public holidays. That speed is the reason a $10 deposit advertised as “instant” on an offshore site is, technically, instant on the Australian leg of the journey. The recipient’s bank then has to credit the offshore operator, which is where the platform’s two-minute monthly outage cap and the bank-side processing window come in.

PayID and Osko are available at over 100 Australian financial institutions. For an Australian-licensed wagering service — a Sportsbet, a Ladbrokes, a Bet365, all of which are licensed in the Northern Territory — PayID or Osko is the standard small-stake deposit route. For an offshore casino, it depends entirely on whether the offshore operator’s bank accepts incoming PayID transfers from Australian customers, and whether the player’s own bank will release a transfer flagged for an account whose displayed name does not match the casino brand.

BPAY

BPAY is the bill-payment service sitting in the online banking of over 140 Australian financial institutions and offered by over 95,000 businesses. The payer enters a Biller Code and a Customer Reference Number printed on the bill; the bank debits the account and credits the biller. BPAY has run since 18 November 1997 and is owned, via Cardlink Services Limited, equally by ANZ, Commonwealth Bank, NAB and Westpac. In September 2021 the ACCC authorised its merger with eftpos and NPP Australia into a single company, Australian Payments Plus.

BPAY is built for recurring, bill-shaped payments — utilities, councils, subscriptions. It is not a deposit rail an offshore casino would normally expose to an Australian player: the Biller Code scheme requires a registered Australian biller, and an offshore operator without an Australian billing entity is not one. Where BPAY matters on this page is at the other end of the relationship. An Australian bank statement showing a BPAY payment to a known biller is the kind of transaction a player can read; an Osko transfer to a PayID whose displayed name is an unrelated individual or an unfamiliar company is the kind that gets questioned afterwards.

Cards, wallets and the credit ban

Australian-licensed online wagering services cannot accept credit cards or credit-related products for gambling. That ban, in force since 11 June 2024 under amendments to the Interactive Gambling Act 2001, extends in practice to digital wallets linked to a credit instrument. Penalties for operators who breach it run to $247,500.

For a player, this means the simple “Visa or Mastercard” deposit button is not available on a properly Australian-licensed wagering site. The legal deposit rails are debit card, bank transfer, PayID/Osko and BPAY. An offshore casino is not bound by this ban, and will happily accept a credit card deposit. The fact that it will is a tell, not a feature: it is a sign the operator is outside the Australian regime rather than a work-around within it.

Westpac’s gambling block refuses authorisation on the card at the merchant-category-code level, regardless of whether the card is credit or debit. ANZ’s equivalent block catches gambling transactions made through a digital wallet such as Apple Pay on an eligible card, not just on the physical card. Apple Pay itself does not charge consumer fees; the only surcharging on an Apple Pay transaction comes from the merchant’s underlying card-processing costs, and Apple does not set the transaction limit — the card issuer does. By the end of 2025 Apple Pay, Google Pay and Samsung Pay together accounted for around 45% of Australian card payments by number. The point of that figure here is not the mobile-wallet share: it is that the debit-card-versus-credit-card distinction, which the IGA ban depends on, has been getting harder to read at the point of sale for years. A wallet tap and a debit-card tap look identical at the terminal, and the wallet’s underlying funding source is what determines whether the transaction is legal at an Australian-licensed wagering site — and irrelevant at an offshore casino.

American Express sits in a different corner. Amex operates a three-party scheme rather than the four-party Visa and Mastercard network — it issues cards and processes transactions itself — and the Reserve Bank of Australia’s July 2025 review of merchant card-payment costs proposed removing surcharges only on eftpos, Mastercard and Visa transactions, explicitly leaving American Express outside the scope of the proposed surcharge ban. None of which changes the IGA position: a credit-product-funded transaction to an offshore casino is still off the legal Australian rails.

What AUSTRAC does and does not see

AUSTRAC’s threshold-transaction-report rule, which requires reporting of transfers of A$10,000 or more, applies to physical cash. Ordinary electronic bank transfers are not subject to that per-transaction reporting rule, regardless of the amount sent. A $10 Osko transfer to an offshore casino does not trip an AUSTRAC report by virtue of size. This is sometimes cited by offshore operators as proof that the deposit is “unregulated”. It is the opposite. The threshold rule is one narrow piece of AUSTRAC’s brief; the broader one is the suspicion-based reporting regime under which banks and payments platforms flag patterns, not sizes. A series of small PayID transfers to the same account, or to a PayID whose displayed name does not match the casino brand, is the kind of pattern a bank’s transaction-monitoring system is built to flag — and the bank, not AUSTRAC, decides what to do with the flag.

The takeaway for a player is straightforward. The plumbing that would move a $10 from an Australian bank to an offshore casino — PayID, Osko, debit card, credit card — is real, fast and Australian-built. Every piece of it is also visible to the player’s own bank, which has its own gambling-block tooling and its own view of where the customer’s money is going. The choice to send the $10 is not a choice the bank has to honour, and the choice to send it through credit or through a wallet that hides a credit instrument is a choice the IGA has already made illegal at the Australian-licensed end of the market.

What the ACMA has actually done to $10-deposit casino brands

The Australian Communications and Media Authority does not publish a list of “approved” offshore casinos, because no such list exists. What it publishes is the other thing: a rolling record of formal warnings issued to operators found to be providing prohibited interactive gambling services to Australians, and a separate record of blocking requests sent to Australian internet service providers.

By June 2026 the ACMA had asked Australian ISPs to block 1,751 illegal gambling and affiliate-marketing websites since the first blocking request in November 2019. In the same period more than 230 unlicensed gambling services had left the Australian market since enforcement was strengthened in 2017. In one round alone, reported on 26 June 2026, the ACMA asked ISPs to block 12 more sites: 7Signs, ChromaBet, Donbet, Duospin, Freshbet, Slots Gem, Jacks Club, Lucky Start, Pointsbetz, Spinrise, Vinyl Casino and Wildsino. These are not warnings to the public; they are directions to the infrastructure layer that makes the sites reachable from Australia in the first place. A blocked site still has a balance, a withdrawal button and a customer-support email. It just no longer loads.

Alongside the blocking, the ACMA issues formal warnings naming the operating company behind each brand. The formal warning is the regulator’s last written step before a civil penalty proceeding or a referral to the Federal Court. The companies named in those warnings are, by definition, the operators the ACMA has found to be providing prohibited services to Australians.

The following table names the brands the ACMA has formally warned over for offering prohibited online casino games to Australians. The list is not a ranking, not a recommendation, and not a directory of sites to visit. It is the regulator’s own published record, transcribed with the date the ACMA published and the operating company the warning named.

The publication dates and operating-company names above are taken from the ACMA’s own formal-warning register. A formal warning is a public document; the ACMA publishes them so that Australians can see which operators have been found to be providing prohibited services in their jurisdiction.

Two patterns are worth pulling out of the table before it becomes a list.

The first is recurrence. Dama N.V. appears three times — May 2022 (Level Up Casino, Rocketplay, Wild Tornado, Cobra Casino, Bambet and Dazard, the last of which are not in the table above), March 2025 (Woo Casino) and May 2025 (Spirit Casino). The same parent company, three formal warnings, three years. TechSolutions appears as the operator behind a 2022 warning to Bizzo Casino; the ACMA’s July 2025 warning names Consolutetish S.R.L. over the same brand. The corporate wrapper changes; the service continues. The ACMA’s formal-warning process targets the operating entity in front of it at the time, not the historical trail of brands, and the warning’s effect stops at the boundary of that entity.

The second is the gap between warning and outcome. A formal warning does not, on its own, take a site offline. The site can keep operating for Australian players until the ACMA escalates to a blocking request, and even then a determined player can route around the block. What the warning does is put a dated, public record on the file: an Australian player who loses money on a brand that has been formally warned over has very limited standing to claim they did not know.

What an ACMA blocking round actually does

The mechanism is short and worth describing once, because it is the structural reason an offshore $10 deposit casino is a $10 deposit into a sandcastle.

When the ACMA finds an operator providing a prohibited interactive gambling service to Australians, it can issue a formal warning. If the operator does not stop, the ACMA can ask the Federal Court for an order directing Australian internet service providers to block access to the service. Once the order is made, ISPs add the relevant domains to their block lists and Australian customers can no longer reach the site through normal means. The blocking is jurisdictional — it stops the site loading from an Australian IP address — not global. The site, its balance ledger and its customer-support team continue to exist; they simply stop being reachable from Australia without a workaround.

For a player who has a balance on a blocked site, the practical effect is that the operator’s withdrawal page is unreachable too. Refunds and balance-return mechanisms have, in past blocking rounds, been either non-existent or run on timelines that bear no resemblance to the deposit that created the balance in the first place. The Australian-side recourse is the ACMA’s investigation file, not a refund queue. The structural lesson is that the deposit leg of a $10 minimum-deposit casino transaction is faster than the withdrawal leg by a margin that the marketing page never explains, and the gap widens the moment the regulator acts.

H2 Gambling Capital’s estimate of the leakage

H2 Gambling Capital’s 2025 report estimates that Australians lose about A$3.9 billion a year to illegal gambling sites, and that the share of gambling going through legal channels fell from 74% in 2021 to 64%. These are industry-analyst figures, not regulator-published ones, and they depend on a model rather than a measured ledger. They are nevertheless the best available number for the scale of what the ACMA’s blocking programme is trying to claw back, and they sit alongside the regulator’s own published record of 1,751 blocked sites and 230 services having left the Australian market. The two together — A$3.9 billion in modelled losses, and a regulator-side count of two-and-a-half thousand services removed or blocked — give the same picture from two angles. The market the offshore $10 deposit casino is selling into is large; the regulator’s response to it is sustained and procedural; and the structural gap between the two is what an Australian player is being invited to bet inside.

What “minimum deposit” actually means on a prohibited product

The phrase “$10 minimum deposit casino” carries two distinct claims, and a reader who conflates them will read the marketing wrong.

The first claim is mechanical: a deposit of $10 or more will be accepted. On the Australian-licensed end of the market, a $10 minimum on a debit-card, PayID or Osko deposit is a routine figure — Sportsbet, Ladbrokes and other NT-licensed bookmakers routinely run minimums in the A$5 to A$10 range for small-stake wagering. On the offshore end, the same minimum applies to a deposit that the ACMA has, in many cases, formally warned the operator about. The minimum is a product feature; the legality of the product is a separate question that the minimum does not answer.

The second claim is what the $10 buys. On a licensed wagering site, $10 buys access to a regulated product with Australian consumer protection, a dispute path through the bank’s ePayments Code, and BetStop coverage if the player needs to step away. On an offshore casino, $10 buys access to a product the ACMA has said is prohibited, with no Australian consumer protection, no Australian dispute body, and a real chance that the ACMA’s next blocking round puts the withdrawal page out of reach. Same dollar, different product.

The arithmetic a marketing page runs is “small stake equals low risk”. The arithmetic a regulator runs is “any deposit to a prohibited service is exposure”. The two arithmetics describe the same $10 from opposite ends. A player who reads both is the player the page is written for.

The legal, land-based alternative

The Australian alternative to a $10 minimum deposit online casino is not a website. It is a machine in a pub, club or casino.

Pub and club pokies — the legal, land-based equivalent of an offshore online pokie — are licensed and operated at state and territory level. The machines are governed by the gaming-machine regulations of each jurisdiction, with state-level regulators setting machine numbers, opening hours, maximum bets, return-to-player percentages, mandatory shutdown periods and self-exclusion arrangements. The dollar you put into a pokie at a registered club is regulated by the state; the dollar you put into an offshore online casino is not regulated by anyone who can force a refund.

The same logic applies to a table-game session in a casino. Crown Melbourne, The Star Sydney and The Star Gold Coast operate under casino licences issued by the Victorian, NSW and Queensland regulators respectively. A $10 bet on a roulette table in one of those venues is a regulated bet, with the state’s casino regulator as the backstop. A $10 bet on the same roulette game played through an offshore live-dealer stream is the prohibited product in disguise.

For someone who wants to play a few dollars on a pokie in Australia and stay inside the law, the route is the venue, not the website. The marketing language about “$10 minimum deposit” exists because the offshore operator needs to be reachable; the legal alternative does not need marketing language because it does not need to recruit across a border.

The legality frame, end to end

The Interactive Gambling Act 2001, as amended in 2017 and 2023, makes it an offence to provide online casino games, online pokies or in-play betting to a person in Australia. No state or territory issues a licence for those products. The IGA targets the provider, not the player; an Australian who plays at an offshore casino is not personally prosecuted. The offshore operator, on the other hand, is the entity the ACMA investigates, warns and, ultimately, has ISPs block.

What the IGA does license is wagering on racing and sporting events placed before the event, lotteries and keno. In practice the racing and sports wagering market is licensed by the Northern Territory Racing and Wagering Commission, which regulates 52 of Australia’s online bookmakers — including Sportsbet, Bet365 and Ladbrokes — for tax reasons. The NTRWC has no full-time staff and meets once a month in Darwin. That thinness is itself a structural feature: the regulator is small because the regulated set, on the wagering side, is settled and well-understood. Online casino is not in that set, because the IGA does not allow it to be.

Age: the minimum age for any gambling in Australia is 18.

What the player is and is not protected by

Australian-licensed online wagering is governed by a stack of protections that the offshore casino does not share.

• The Interactive Gambling Act 2001 prohibits the supply of online casino games, online pokies and in-play betting to Australians. Operators who breach it face civil penalties under the Act.
• Since 11 June 2024 licensed wagering services cannot accept payment by credit card or credit-related product; penalties for breaching this ban run to A$247,500. Digital wallets funded from a credit instrument fall within the practical reach of the ban.
• BetStop, the National Self-Exclusion Register, has been live since August 2023 and binds every Australian-licensed online and phone wagering service. An offshore casino is not connected to BetStop.
• The Australian banks’ gambling blocks — at ANZ, CBA and Westpac — operate at the merchant-category-code level on eligible cards, refusing authorisation of “Betting/Casino Gambling” transactions. ANZ’s block also catches gambling transactions made through a digital wallet on an eligible card, and turning the block off requires a 48-hour cooling-off.

The offshore casino sits outside all of this. The IGA does not reach it; the credit-card ban does not reach it; BetStop does not reach it; the bank’s gambling block reaches it only when the deposit is on a card the bank’s block is monitoring, and even then the bank warns that not all gambling transactions will be stopped. The “Australian consumer protection” framing that offshore marketing copy sometimes borrows refers to the general protections available to Australian residents — the ACL, AFCA, the ePayments Code — and assumes the consumer is dealing with an Australian-regulated counterparty. An offshore casino is not that counterparty, and the protections do not travel.

The 2026 reform package

The Interactive Gambling Amendment (Gambling Reform) Bill 2026 passed Parliament on 19 August 2026. Its advertising and inducement measures commence on 1 January 2027. For a 2026 reader, this is law with a start date that has not yet arrived: the new advertising rules do not yet bind any operator, and the page cannot point at a regime that is not yet in force. The point worth carrying into the next twelve months is that the legislative direction of travel is toward tighter inducement rules on licensed wagering, not toward licensing of online casino.

Tax

Gambling winnings of a recreational player are not assessable income under section 6-5 of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997, and losses are not deductible. The exception is a person who carries on a business of gambling, which is a high bar and not the situation of someone putting $10 into an offshore casino. The ATO’s position is the structural reason a $10 win does not need to be declared, and a $10 loss cannot be written off — both halves of that bargain cut the same way for a casual player, and the rule does not depend on whether the casino is licensed or offshore.

What the ACMA’s blocking rate actually shows

The arithmetic behind the ACMA’s enforcement programme is the one piece of numerical information-gain the page is built around.

By the ACMA’s own published figure for June 2026, 1,751 illegal gambling and affiliate-marketing websites have been blocked since the first blocking request in November 2019. That is the running total. The first blocking request — the starting line of the count — was made in November 2019. From November 2019 to June 2026 is roughly 79 months.

Doing the division: 1,751 blocked sites across 79 months is a long-run rate of roughly 22 blocked sites per month, or just over one site every 36 hours. Spread across that whole period the figure looks orderly. Concentrated into the recent rounds — the 26 June 2026 round alone added 12 sites, and the formal-warning register shows a steady cadence of monthly warnings — the rate is closer to a site a day in active periods.

What the rate does not say is what an individual player will encounter. The 1,751 figure counts domains, not customer accounts. A player on one of those domains could in principle have any balance, from cents to thousands. The relevant reading of the figure is structural rather than personal: the regulator is keeping up a throughput that is broadly one site a day, and the marketing page advertising a “$10 minimum deposit” is, with meaningful probability, a site that has either already been warned over or will be by the time the player tries to withdraw.

What an Australian player should do with this page

If a $10 minimum deposit casino is the page the reader came looking for, three things follow from the material above.

First, the legal product. A $10 bet on a licensed land-based pokie, or a $10 wager with an NT-licensed online bookmaker on a pre-event sporting or racing market, is the same dollar spent inside Australian law. The licensed product does not advertise with the same urgency, because it does not need to recruit across a border.

Second, the offshore offer. A $10 deposit at an offshore online casino is a deposit into a product the IGA prohibits, with no Australian consumer protection, no Australian dispute body, and a real chance the regulator will move to block the site during the lifetime of the balance. The “small stake” framing is real; the “low risk” framing is the part that does not survive the regulator’s own published record.

Third, the structural safeguards. BetStop, the National Gambling Helpline on 1800 858 858, and the bank’s gambling block are the three Australian-side tools that exist for the player, not the operator. None of them turn an offshore casino into a legal product. They turn a player who has decided to step away from the product — whether the licensed or the offshore one — into someone the Australian system can actually reach.

Frequently asked questions

Can I actually deposit $10 at a licensed Australian online casino?

No, because no Australian online casino is licensed. The Interactive Gambling Act 2001 prohibits the supply of online casino games and online pokies to Australians, and no state or territory issues a licence for them. What is licensed is online wagering on racing and sport before the event, lotteries and keno, regulated at territory level by bodies like the Northern Territory Racing and Wagering Commission.

Why do so many sites advertise a $10 minimum deposit for Australian players?

Because the operators behind those sites are offshore and the IGA does not stop them marketing into Australia. A small minimum is the cheapest way to recruit a player across a border the regulator cannot seal. The same operators are the ones the ACMA names in formal warnings — RocketPlay, Woo Casino, Spirit Casino, National Casino, Bizzo Casino, Ignition Casino, Instant Casino, Jackbit, Casino Intense, Sky Crown and Level Up Casino among them — because the offer itself is the prohibited product.

How would a $10 bank transfer normally clear if it were sent through Osko?

In under a minute, 24/7 including weekends, through the New Payments Platform. The transfer is addressed to a BSB and account number or to a PayID, and the recipient’s name is shown before the transfer is sent. AP+, the platform’s operator, warns that a PayID displayed against an illegal-gambling site is almost certainly a scam — that warning is about the recipient, not the speed. The speed is the easy half of the problem.

Is a $10 deposit at an offshore casino covered by any Australian consumer protection?

Not meaningfully. The Australian Consumer Law, the ePayments Code and AFCA dispute resolution apply to entities that operate in Australia or hold an Australian financial-services licence. An offshore casino does neither. If a withdrawal is refused or a balance is stranded when the site is blocked, the Australian-side recourse is the ACMA’s investigation file, not a refund queue. The $10 is, in practice, at the operator’s discretion.

What is the legal, land-based alternative to a $10 deposit online casino in Australia?

Pub and club pokies licensed by state and territory gaming-machine regulators, and table games at the licensed casinos — Crown Melbourne, The Star Sydney, The Star Gold Coast. A $10 bet on a pokie at a registered club is a regulated bet under the state’s gaming-machine rules. A $10 bet on the equivalent game through an offshore online casino is the prohibited product.

Which Australian law makes real-money online casino play illegal regardless of the deposit size?

The Interactive Gambling Act 2001, as strengthened by the Interactive Gambling Amendment Act 2017. The Act makes it an offence to provide online casino games, online pokies and in-play betting to a person physically in Australia, regardless of the size of the stake. It targets the provider, not the player, but it is the reason every offshore $10 deposit casino offering casino games to Australians is, on the ACMA’s reading of the law, operating illegally.

Published by the Casino Ratings Info team.