Brazil has fundamentally shifted its gambling enforcement strategy, and regulators across the continent are watching closely. Rather than chasing offshore operators directly, the government is now targeting the financial infrastructure that keeps them alive locally. President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva’s latest decree gives authorities real power to freeze assets of unlicensed betting platforms while holding banks, fintech firms, and advertisers liable for facilitating those transactions. The logic is straightforward: you can’t shut down a company operating from Curaçao or Malta, but you can disrupt the payment channels it absolutely depends on.

South Africa faces the same regulatory headache that Brazil has now decided to tackle head-on. Online betting has become one of the country’s fastest-growing gambling segments, with wagering estimated at R1.5 trillion in the 2024/25 financial year. Here’s the problem: roughly 62% of that activity is believed to happen outside the licensed market, according to research cited by the South African Bookmakers’ Association. Billions of rand flow annually to offshore operators who hold legitimate licenses abroad but no legal standing in South Africa.

A Legal Puzzle South Africa Hasn’t Solved

What Brazil achieved through executive decree would face serious obstacles here. South Africa’s legal framework would almost certainly demand legislation rather than a presidential order. Asset seizures typically involve the Asset Forfeiture Unit and court oversight, meaning any payment-blocking regime would need to navigate parliament, where the long-awaited Remote Gambling Bill remains stuck alongside other gambling reforms.

Then there’s the tricky business of defining what counts as illegal gambling in South Africa. Online sports betting is permitted. Online casino gaming is not. Yet operators routinely blur these boundaries with hybrid products that have sparked years of legal disputes. A payment-monitoring system would require an accurate, constantly updated register of licensed operators. Without it, you’d catch legitimate businesses in enforcement nets designed for offshore competitors.

The Cryptocurrency Wildcard

Even seasoned enforcement advocates will admit to a structural weakness in the payment-blocking approach. Restricting traditional banking channels doesn’t eliminate demand. It redirects it. Customers may simply migrate to cryptocurrencies, stablecoins, or alternative payment systems that operate beyond conventional financial oversight. The iGaming industry has made this argument before during debates over proposed tax increases: push too aggressively, and activity moves further underground rather than disappearing altogether.

That doesn’t invalidate the strategy. But it does suggest payment restrictions alone won’t solve the problem comprehensively.

The Revenue Question

Brazil has directed seized funds toward public security. South Africa would face a political minefield deciding where recovered money should go. Harm-reduction advocates would demand a share. The Treasury would resist earmarking funds for specific purposes. That disagreement could derail the entire initiative before enforcement even begins.

What makes Brazil’s timing significant is the context. Brazil legalized online betting and is now managing its consequences. South Africa is still designing its regulatory framework from scratch. That’s both a challenge and an opportunity. Policymakers have a genuine chance to learn from Brazil’s playbook before implementing their own version.