Emphasizing the prohibition of bets for Bolsa Família beneficiaries is, at the very least, exaggerated and disproportionate. This is the opinion of Felipe Crisafulli, partner at Ambiel Lawyers, in an article about the measure determined by Supreme Federal Court minister Luiz Fux. "The truth is that this type of deliberation translates a thought that the poor need to be (re)educated and introduced to reason," he assesses.
Money in hand is a whirlwind, it's a whirlwind; in the life of a dreamer, of a dreamer..., the poet has noted. But the poet also sings that money in hand is a solution... and loneliness, and loneliness, and loneliness, and loneliness...
Yes, greed is a deadly sin; but that's not what fixed quota betting is about. Betting is not about the final outcome; betting is not about getting rich; betting is not about winning or losing, changing lives or quitting work. Betting is about enjoying the journey; betting is about having fun, distracting, entertaining; betting, like everything in life, is about balance – between gains and losses, between the essential and the superfluous. Betting is, above all, about self-control and moderation.
It happens that there are six other deadly sins, and pride is the most treacherous of all. While the other vices, as Saint Augustine taught, cling to evil, so that it may be realized, pride clings to good, so that it may perish.
In other words, pride ends up generating in man a pretense of goodness, present and/or future. It is, therefore, the king of all sins, according to Richard W. Dortch, or the mother of all vices, in the words of Saint Thomas Aquinas.
And is there anything more arrogant than, with a single stroke of the pen – executive, legislative, or judicial –, even with good intentions – of which, Saint Bernard of Clairvaux would say, hell is full –, to define what a citizen may do with his money? Well, that's what was seen happening, last week.
Apart from the respective pretensions of the Federal Government and the public hearing held before the Supreme Federal Court on the impact of online betting, the decision of minister Luiz Fux, in the context of a precautionary measure, determining that the Ministry of Finance implement immediate measures that prevent the amounts received by beneficiaries of social and welfare programs (Bolsa Família, Continuous Cash Benefit, etc.) from being used for fixed quota betting purposes can be perfectly framed in the supercapital sin of pride.
With or without a direct objective of this magnitude, the truth is that this type of deliberation translates a thought that the poor need to be (re)educated and introduced to reason. Indeed, as this takes time, it is necessary, at times, to decide for them and regulate poverty, even under the prism of morality – especially when facing a gift, in the State/beneficiaries relationship, as social and welfare programs, particularly Bolsa Família, are customarily seen.
Now, as established by Law No. 14.601/2023, which instituted the Bolsa Família Program, this, as a social policy, corresponds to a stage in the gradual and progressive process of implementing the universalization of basic income (art. 1º, § 1º), aimed at direct and conditioned income transfer (art. 2º).
As a direct transfer, the cash benefit grants (some) autonomy to the individual. However, it is not about full, general, broad, and unrestricted autonomy: there are certain conditions, provided in art. 10.
Among these conditions are prenatal care, compliance with the national vaccination schedule, monitoring of the nutritional status of beneficiaries up to 7 years of age, and school attendance for children and adolescents.
In this context, none of these requirements corroborate, in greater or lesser degree, the above-mentioned judicial decision, to prohibit the use of amounts received through socio-assistance policies in the lottery betting modality of fixed quotas.
To tell the truth, this type of control of the income transferred by Bolsa Família to its beneficiaries, beyond being counterproductive and undesirable, resonates as unfeasible and incompatible with the very logic of Brazilian legislation. Now, one is facing a minimum income based on human dignity, of a universal and direct nature: such monitoring seems to be exactly the opposite of the spirit – and perhaps of the design – of the Program.
Moreover, the sole paragraph of art. 3º of the law supports this understanding, prescribing that, to achieve the objectives of the Bolsa Família Program, one must act with strict respect for the privacy of beneficiary families, including for the purposes of the General Data Protection Law (“LGPD”).
Thus, from the decision of minister Luiz Fux, it will be difficult to put this respect into practice, given that the impediment to the use of resources obtained with social and welfare policies – mandatorily – will personalize the matter, as it will be linked to a specific person, beneficiary of the respective program.
Therefore, whether from the aspect of respect for privacy, intimacy, and self-determination of the individual, or by the protection of fundamental rights, free development of personality, human dignity, and full exercise of citizenship, while data do not prove such a massive risk of indebtedness of the population due to betting, and particularly a more pronounced probability of this happening among Bolsa Família beneficiaries, giving greater emphasis to the poor in this particular, if not reflecting prejudiced and discriminatory behavior, is, at the very least, exaggerated and disproportionate – or rather, it is a sin more than capital.
Felipe Crisafulli
Partner at Ambiel Lawyers. Specialist in Sports Law and Regulation of Games and Betting. Doctoral candidate in Civil Law at the University of Coimbra (Portugal). Member of the Commission on Gaming Law, Betting and Responsible Gaming of OAB/SP.
Source: GMB
