Civil injunction silences claims against EM Group, Bellona

Allegations of illegal gambling: unanswered questions in Frankfurt court ruling

A civil injunction issued by the Regional Court of Frankfurt on 30 June 2025 (Case no. 2-12 O 137/25) prohibits a German player from repeating specific allegations regarding Bellona N.V. and EM Group. The order was later shared with Malta Media by the solicitors of EM Group, Melchers, in response to a press inquiry.

Notably, the version provided was unredacted and included the full name and residential address of the individual concerned. This raises legitimate questions about data protection practices in Germany, particularly regarding the disclosure of personally identifiable information to third parties in the context of media communications. Whether such disclosure complies with the standards set out under the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) remains an open issue that may warrant closer examination.

The court order prohibits a German individual from publicly repeating allegations concerning Bellona N.V., a Curaçao-licensed company and its service provider EM Group (eMoore N.V.). EM Group was represented in the proceedings by the German law firm Melchers. The court concluded that the statements made by the individual were to be regarded as inadmissible, in part due to language that was argued to resemble coercion or reputational pressure. No findings were made on the legality of the gambling operations themselves, nor were any regulatory violations assessed as part of the injunction process.

However, documents cited in the ruling confirm that the individual had transferred approximately €32,000 to Bellona N.V.’s gambling websites. At the time, Bellona was licensed in Curaçao. German gambling law, particularly the Glücksspielstaatsvertrag 2021 (GlüStV), restricts online gambling access to operators licensed within Germany. Operators targeting German users without such approval are generally considered to be in breach of §284 StGB (Illegal Gambling).

In addition, §261 StGB (Money Laundering) may also be engaged where funds are generated through such unauthorised activity, particularly if the proceeds are reintegrated into the financial system or used in further commercial transactions. These provisions form part of Germany’s broader framework for combating financial crime and safeguarding regulated markets.

Additional concerns were also raised in the proceedings, though not adjudicated. The individual alleged that the website operated without compliance with the OASIS exclusion register and that there were systemic gaps in AML (Anti-Money Laundering) and KYC (Know Your Customer) procedures.

References were made to EM Group’s role as service provider, including trustee and corporate director functions. It remains unclear from the public record whether these claims were investigated or independently assessed by relevant authorities.

German law requires certain public officials, including judges, to report serious offences encountered in the course of their duties. No indication has yet been made that any such referral to prosecutorial authorities was triggered by the content of this civil injunction proceeding.

This raises important questions about the division between civil defamation proceedings and potential administrative or criminal enforcement. While the court acted to prevent reputational harm through unverified public statements, it did not address whether the underlying conduct warranted regulatory scrutiny.

While German lawyers benefit from extensive confidentiality protections under §43a BRAO, this duty does not authorise them to assist in, or ignore, conduct that may breach regulatory or criminal law. As members of the legal profession, they are bound by the Berufsordnung für Rechtsanwälte (BORA), which requires them to act independently, conscientiously and in accordance with the law.

If an attorney becomes aware that their client may be involved in activities that contravene licensing rules or anti-money laundering obligations, they must carefully consider their own professional position. Continued legal support in such cases, depending on the circumstances, could raise questions of ethical responsibility and potential exposure to disciplinary or reputational consequences.

No wrongdoing is alleged here on the part of Melchers or EM Group. The intent of this post is not to suggest unlawful conduct, but to highlight a regulatory grey zone: where civil proceedings silence individual complainants, but potentially serious allegations concerning licensing, AML and consumer protection remain unanswered.

This case illustrates the growing tension between defamation claims and whistleblower protections in the digital age. It also raises a broader policy question for German authorities: how should courts and legal representatives proceed when civil filings refer to conduct that, if substantiated, may fall within the scope of criminal or administrative law?

FAQs

What did the Frankfurt Regional Court decide in this case?
The court issued a civil injunction prohibiting a German individual from repeating specific allegations against Bellona N.V. and EM Group.

Who are Bellona N.V. and EM Group?
Bellona N.V. is a Curaçao-licensed gambling operator, while EM Group (eMoore N.V.) acts as its service provider and corporate director.

Why was the injunction granted?
The court found the allegations to be inadmissible, suggesting that the language used could be seen as coercive or reputationally harmful.

Did the court make any findings on gambling legality?
No, the court did not assess the legality of the gambling operations or investigate any regulatory violations.

How much money was reportedly involved?
Documents in the ruling showed that the individual had transferred approximately €32,000 to Bellona N.V.'s gambling websites.

Was any personally identifiable information disclosed?
Yes, the unredacted court order shared with the media included the individual's full name and address, raising GDPR concerns.

Are unlicensed gambling operations illegal in Germany?
Yes, under the GlüStV 2021 and §284 StGB, offering online gambling without a German license is generally illegal.

Could this case involve money laundering concerns?
Potentially. Under §261 StGB, unauthorised gambling funds could trigger anti-money laundering scrutiny if reintegrated into the financial system.

Were Melchers or EM Group accused of any wrongdoing?
No allegations of misconduct were made against Melchers or EM Group in the civil proceedings.

What broader legal issue does this case highlight?
It raises the tension between defamation law and whistleblower protections, especially when civil suits intersect with uninvestigated regulatory concerns.

Legal Disclaimer: This article does not assert or imply any unlawful conduct by EM Group (eMoore N.V.), Bellona N.V. or their legal representatives. All references to legal provisions, proceedings or potential regulatory implications are based on publicly available documents and general legal commentary. No allegations are made, and no conclusions should be drawn about the legality of any party’s actions. The content is not intended to prejudice ongoing legal matters or interfere with judicial decisions.