Italy freezes assets in Gratta e Vinci case over alleged €25 million loss

Italian financial police have executed a precautionary seizure of assets and financial holdings worth more than €25 million in a case involving five former employees of the concessionaire responsible for the country's Gratta e Vinci instant lottery games. The measure, executed on 23 October 2026, follows proceedings initiated by the Lazio regional prosecutor's office of the Corte dei conti, Italy's Court of Auditors.

The former employees are accused of exploiting access to the concessionaire's computer systems to identify four high-value winning tickets before their purchase. According to the allegations, relatives and friends subsequently bought the tickets from the retail outlets to which they had been distributed.

The four prizes reportedly comprised two first prizes worth €7 million each and two worth €5 million each. Their combined value was €24 million. Prosecutors have put the alleged damage to the public administration at €25,067,224 and are seeking to protect the funds potentially needed to satisfy a future judgment.

The allegations have not been established by a final judgment. The seizure is a precautionary measure intended to preserve assets while the proceedings continue. It should not be interpreted as a finding of guilt against any of the individuals involved.

A precautionary seizure exceeding €25 million

The Guardia di Finanza‘s Rome provincial command carried out the order following a decision by the Lazio section of the Corte dei conti. The measure is known under Italian law as a sequestro conservativo, a form of precautionary attachment designed to safeguard assets while a financial claim is being adjudicated.

The order covers 25 property units, including apartments, small villas, garages and cellars. These properties are located across the provinces of Rome, Viterbo, Treviso, Taranto, Grosseto and Reggio Calabria. Five vehicles, comprising cars and motorcycles, as well as financial holdings are also covered by the measure.

The alleged damage figure of €25,067,224 exceeds the combined value of the four prizes. The amount represents the claim advanced in the audit proceedings, rather than a final determination of financial liability. The court will have to assess the basis and extent of any recoverable loss.

The five former employees have also been summoned to appear before the audit court. A designated judge is expected to consider whether the precautionary order should be confirmed, modified or revoked. The outcome of that review will determine whether the present restrictions on the assets remain in place.

How the alleged ticket selection scheme worked

According to the allegations outlined by the financial police, the former employees used their access credentials to obtain information from the concessionaire's computer systems. Investigators allege that the access was used to identify specific winning tickets and establish which retail outlets would receive them.

The tickets could then allegedly be purchased by people connected to the former employees. If proved, the conduct would raise questions about the separation between confidential operational information and the public-facing lottery distribution process.

The four prizes reportedly relate to tickets associated with transactions between 2015 and 2019. Two prizes worth €5 million each were associated with tickets purchased in 2015, while two €7 million prizes were associated with later purchases in 2017 and 2019.

The allegations concern the alleged use of privileged information, not simply the purchase of winning tickets. The distinction is important because the case centres on whether information intended to remain inaccessible to ordinary players was improperly used to influence who could obtain the prizes.

The authorities have not established the alleged conduct through a final judgment. Any account of the supposed mechanism must therefore remain attributed to the investigators and prosecutors, with the individuals' legal position determined through the applicable proceedings.

Why the claim is directed at the public administration

An important feature of the Gratta e Vinci investigation is the identity of the party said to have suffered financial damage. The claim is being pursued on behalf of the Agenzia delle Dogane e dei Monopoli (ADM), Italy's Customs and Monopolies Agency, rather than being presented as a claim by the lottery concessionaire itself.

The prosecutors' argument rests on the possibility that the four prizes might otherwise have remained unclaimed. Under this theory, the alleged use of advance information would have deprived the State of funds that could have remained within the public revenue system if the tickets had not been purchased and the prizes had not been collected.

This is a distinct legal question from whether the tickets were valid or whether the prizes were paid according to the applicable rules. The proceedings must address whether the alleged conduct caused a legally recoverable loss to the public administration and how that loss should be calculated.

The difference between the €24 million in prizes and the claim of €25,067,224 is also relevant. The larger amount reflects the overall figure advanced in the proceedings. Its precise legal and financial basis remains subject to judicial assessment.

The case consequently raises questions about the protection of public revenue, the handling of confidential information and the safeguards expected in a lottery system operating under a public concession.

The concessionaire and the wider lottery framework

The instant lottery concession is held by Lotterie Nazionali S.r.l., which the ADM identifies as responsible for managing Italy's scratchcard lottery system. The regulator's published information explains that the prizes are incorporated into tickets through a controlled process and that tickets must be validated through the concessionaire's information system.

The official framework is designed to maintain the distinction between the internal processes used to produce and distribute tickets and the experience available to customers purchasing them at authorised retail outlets. Allegations involving the possible misuse of internal access therefore concern the integrity of those controls.

The concession currently runs until 30 September 2028 under the existing arrangements. As that date approaches, the administration of the lottery and the safeguards surrounding access to sensitive information are likely to remain important considerations for the sector.

The case does not establish that the concessionaire itself engaged in wrongdoing. The authorities have expressly described the company as unrelated to the alleged conduct. That distinction should be maintained when discussing the proceedings, particularly because claims concerning individual former employees can otherwise be incorrectly attributed to a wider business.

For the regulator, the central questions extend beyond the value of the four prizes. They include whether access privileges were adequately restricted, whether unusual system activity could be detected and whether the allocation and distribution process remained protected against improper interference.

A previous inquiry and the current legal position

The alleged ticket purchases previously attracted attention in connection with a criminal investigation reported in 2020. That earlier inquiry concerned suspected conduct involving access to computer systems and the acquisition of winning scratchcards.

The current proceedings before the Corte dei conti concern the alleged financial damage to the State and the preservation of assets against the claim. The existence of a prior criminal inquiry does not, by itself, establish liability in the audit proceedings or determine the final outcome of the current case.

The distinction between the proceedings is important. A precautionary asset order addresses the immediate need to preserve funds and property. The substantive case must still assess the evidence, the alleged conduct and the legal basis for any financial responsibility.

The available public information does not establish the final outcome of the earlier criminal inquiry. It would therefore be inappropriate to imply that the allegations have already resulted in a final criminal finding.

For the five former employees, the immediate legal issue is whether the precautionary measure will remain in force and how the subsequent proceedings will assess the claim. The court's decisions will determine the next steps under the applicable procedures.

What the case could mean for lottery oversight

The allegations highlight the importance of maintaining confidence in instant lotteries. Players expect the distribution of winning tickets to follow the applicable rules and do not ordinarily have access to information about the location of prizes before purchasing a ticket.

If the allegations are substantiated, the case could underline the need for strict separation of duties, carefully controlled access credentials and appropriate monitoring of systems used to manage lottery information. Such safeguards can help reduce the risk that authorised access is used for purposes outside an employee's responsibilities.

The proceedings could also draw attention to how regulators assess the financial consequences of alleged interference with a public lottery. The prosecution's theory depends on more than the value of the prizes paid out. It requires the court to consider the possibility that the alleged conduct affected funds that would otherwise have remained available to the State.

That question is especially significant in a concession-based system, where the operator's contractual responsibilities and the public administration's financial interests are related but legally distinct.

The case also illustrates why preventive measures and final judgments must not be confused. Preserving assets can be necessary to protect a potential claim without deciding whether the claim is ultimately justified.

Conclusion: Public trust remains central to Gratta e Vinci

The Gratta e Vinci investigation places the integrity of Italy's instant lottery system under close legal scrutiny. The alleged identification of four high-value tickets, the precautionary seizure exceeding €25 million and the claim brought on behalf of the public administration make the proceedings significant beyond the individual prizes involved.

At the centre of the dispute is the relationship between confidential system information, fair access to lottery prizes and the protection of public revenue. The prosecutors argue that the alleged use of privileged information may have altered an outcome that should have remained uncertain for ordinary customers. Whether that theory establishes a recoverable loss is a matter for the competent court.

The next procedural decisions will determine whether the asset restrictions remain in place and how the claim progresses. Until the evidence has been assessed and a final judgment delivered, the allegations should remain allegations and no conclusion about individual liability should be drawn.

Ultimately, the case demonstrates the importance of combining technical safeguards with transparent oversight and sound legal procedures. For a lottery built around uncertainty, confidence depends not only on the prizes offered but also on the credibility of the systems that govern how those prizes reach the public.

FAQs

What is the Gratta e Vinci case about?
The case concerns allegations that five former employees of Italy's instant lottery concessionaire used access to computer systems to identify four winning scratchcards before purchase. The allegations have not been established by a final judgment.

How much money is involved in the case?
The prosecutors' claim against the former employees is €25,067,224. The four prizes at the centre of the allegations had a combined value of €24 million.

Who ordered the precautionary asset seizure?
The order was issued by the Lazio section of the Corte dei conti following a request from the regional prosecutor's office. The Guardia di Finanza's Rome provincial command executed the measure.

What assets have been affected by the order?
The measure covers 25 property units, including apartments, villas, garages and cellars, along with five cars and motorcycles and financial holdings.

Why are five former employees facing proceedings?
Prosecutors allege that the former employees misused their access credentials to identify winning tickets and that people connected to them subsequently purchased those tickets. The allegations remain subject to judicial assessment.

Which prizes are involved in the investigation?
The four tickets reportedly carried two first prizes worth €7 million each and two prizes worth €5 million each, making a combined total of €24 million.

Why is the claim being pursued on behalf of the State?
Prosecutors argue that the alleged conduct may have prevented prizes from remaining unclaimed and therefore reduced funds that could otherwise have flowed to the public administration. The court must determine whether this argument establishes a recoverable loss.

Does the asset seizure mean that the former employees have been found guilty?
No. The seizure is a precautionary measure intended to preserve assets while proceedings continue. It is not a final judgment establishing liability.

Is the lottery concessionaire accused of wrongdoing?
The authorities have described the concessionaire as unrelated to the alleged conduct. The current proceedings concern five former employees and the public administration's financial claim.

What happens next in the case?
A designated judge will consider whether to confirm, modify or revoke the precautionary seizure. The substantive proceedings must address the allegations and determine whether financial liability can be established.