Bangladesh’s new Anti-Gambling Act, passed by Parliament on Tuesday, promises a tougher crackdown on online betting, cryptocurrency gambling and digital gambling syndicates.
But while few dispute the need to combat the rapidly growing online gambling industry, the law has ignited a debate over whether it also grants the state sweeping surveillance and enforcement powers with insufficient judicial oversight.
Replacing the 159-year-old Public Gambling Act of 1867, the new legislation brings online gambling into Bangladesh’s criminal justice framework for the first time.
It defines 24 forms of gambling-related activities, including online betting, remote gambling, match-fixing, cryptocurrency-based gambling, digital wallets, VPNs, mirror sites and fake SIM cards, while introducing penalties of up to seven years’ imprisonment and hefty financial fines.
The government’s case is straightforward: gambling has moved from street corners to encrypted messaging apps, offshore websites and digital payment systems, making traditional law enforcement ineffective.
To address that shift, the law authorises authorities to freeze bank accounts, mobile financial service accounts, digital wallets and cryptocurrency assets linked to gambling.
It also empowers the government to block gambling websites and establish an inter-agency task force involving law enforcement, intelligence agencies and other government bodies.
The most contentious provision, however, concerns police powers.
Although the law generally requires investigators to obtain a Cyber Tribunal warrant before searching or seizing digital devices, it creates an exception allowing police to conduct warrantless searches, seize electronic evidence and make arrests if they believe digital evidence could be deleted or destroyed before court approval is obtained.
The provision immediately drew criticism during parliamentary debate.
NCP lawmaker Akhtar Hossain warned that powers to block websites, mobile applications and IP addresses could be vulnerable to misuse, arguing that websites or online platforms critical of the government could potentially be affected under the guise of enforcing the law.
Jamaat-e-Islami MP Najibur Rahman also supported stronger judicial safeguards, proposing that police be required to obtain prompt judicial approval after any warrantless seizure.
Home Minister Salahuddin Ahmed rejected the criticism, saying investigations into online gambling often require immediate intervention because digital evidence can disappear within minutes. Waiting for prior court approval, he argued, could allow offenders to erase evidence and evade prosecution.
Legal experts say both arguments carry weight.
Supreme Court lawyer Monjil Morshed said investigative agencies need adequate powers to tackle sophisticated cyber-enabled crimes, but warned that those powers must remain subject to accountability and judicial oversight.
Human rights activist Abu Ahmed Faizul Kabir expressed concern that provisions allowing searches, seizures and arrests largely on the basis of suspicion could conflict with constitutional protections relating to privacy, personal liberty and freedom of expression if not exercised with restraint.
Opposition Chief Whip Nahid Islam said the opposition broadly supported the objective of the legislation but believed stronger safeguards would have made the law more balanced.
Ultimately, the debate surrounding the Anti-Gambling Act extends beyond gambling itself.
The real test, legal experts say, will not be how aggressively authorities enforce the law, but whether Bangladesh can dismantle sophisticated online gambling networks without creating powers that could reach far beyond their intended purpose.