How is it determined that a gambling website has provided "technical support"? Which positions have the opportunity to avoid prosecution?

Author ｜ Lawyer Shao Shiwei

In cases of operating a gambling den, especially those involving internet platforms (such as gaming apps, virtual currency exchanges, blockchain gaming platforms, etc.) accused of gambling, there is often a situation where the platform is deemed to be involved in gambling, leading to investigations of employees.

However, will employees necessarily be found guilty? Of course not.

Whether criminal responsibility will be pursued still goes back to a core issue - the employee's job responsibilities and level of involvement.

However, in judicial practice, case handlers often do not understand the internal job division of internet companies.

For example: UI/UX designers, test engineers, operations and maintenance personnel, API integration personnel, SDK developers, front-end and back-end developers, the responsibilities of these positions vary greatly.

However, in specific cases, law enforcement personnel may indiscriminately view platform employees as “providing technical support for gambling websites,” thus identifying them as accomplices in the crime of operating a casino. The result of such misjudgment could directly determine whether the workers ultimately face a sentence or are acquitted.

Therefore, it is particularly important for the defense to clearly explain the differences in job responsibilities to the authorities at the beginning of the case, helping the case handlers understand the specific responsibilities of different positions in the operation of the platform.

How to determine if a gambling website provides “technical support”?

Both the judicial interpretations on online gambling issued in 2010 and 2020 clearly define the types of accomplice behavior in the crime of operating a casino:

Provide software development, technical support, internet access, server hosting, network storage space, communication transmission channels, advertising placement, member development, and payment settlement services for gambling platforms.

But the key question is - what exactly does “technical support” refer to?

Although the judicial interpretation lists types of behavior, it does not provide a more detailed definition of “technical support.” This has also led to an expanded interpretation of the job responsibilities for some positions in practice.

Based on judicial practice experience, Lawyer Shao believes that the so-called “technical support” typically includes the following specific forms:

·Software Development and Maintenance: Developing websites, apps, and mini-programs for gambling platforms, or providing daily operation maintenance, bug fixes, and other services;

·Data and algorithm support: Provide core data or algorithm support for gambling activities, such as esports platform odds systems, ensuring bookmaker profits through algorithm adjustments;

· System and Network Support: Providing services such as internet access, server hosting, network storage space, and communication transmission channels to ensure the stable operation of websites;

·Payment technology solutions: Develop or maintain technical systems for betting settlement, recharge, and withdrawal;

· Auxiliary tool development: Create plug-ins, scripts, etc. that can automatically log in, place bets, or scrape user data.

It can be seen that the “technical support” in the crime of operating a casino does not refer to any technical-related behavior in general, but rather to specialized and substantive technical actions that provide key technical support for the normal operation of gambling websites, help them evade regulation, expand their scale, or improve efficiency.

Only when these technical services substantially promote the development or expansion of gambling activities, and the actor subjectively knows that their service target is a gambling website, can it meet the constituent elements of the crime of aiding and abetting in running a casino.

In other words, if the actor has not charged excessively high fees, has not used encryption methods to conceal their actions, and has promptly ceased services upon receiving regulatory notice, then it cannot be directly inferred as “knowingly.” In such cases, the perpetrator not only needs to provide the “objective behavior” of technical services but also must meet the requirement of “subjective knowledge” to satisfy the constitutive elements of the crime of operating a casino.

Does the responsibility of a UI designer fall under “technical support”?

Lawyer Shao believes that the responsibilities of a UI designer do not align with the concept of “technical support” in the crime of operating a casino, therefore UI designers should not be considered guilty of operating a casino.

What does UI mean?

UI, which stands for User Interface in English, refers to the user interface. In our daily lives, when we use mobile applications (APPs) or visit websites, all the visual elements that come into view, such as the style of icons, the color and shape of buttons, the font and size of text, and the layout of various functions, all fall within the scope of user interface.

What does a UI designer specifically do?

UI Designer, whose full English name is User Interface Designer, is mainly responsible for the overall design of human-computer interaction, operational logic, and interface aesthetics for software, applications, or websites, with the core goal of enhancing the user experience of the product.

Lawyer Shao believes that the work of a UI designer does not meet the elements of “technical support” for three main reasons:

01

Technical behavior is not critical.

If the nature of the position is limited to general interface and material design work, the main responsibilities include beautifying and optimizing the colors, typography, button positions, pop-up styles, etc. of web pages and apps, and creating advertising images and promotional videos according to operational needs, then the job content is limited to the appearance design of pages and icons, without involving the development of internal platform functions or backend logic.

Its work on the platform involved only interface display and visual aspects, and did not involve the technical implementation of the gambling module related functions of the platform. The content of its work is not significantly different from the responsibilities of traditional internet company UI designers.

02

Subjectively does not possess the characteristic of “knowing”.

As ordinary staff on the platform, UI designers are usually managed uniformly by the company and complete designated tasks according to their job responsibilities. Their salary levels do not differ significantly from the general market standards. Moreover, personnel in this position often find it difficult to access the actual business of the platform or the flow of funds, and they lack the ability to discern the nature of the platform's business.

According to the provisions of the 2020 “Opinions on Several Issues Concerning the Handling of Cross-Border Gambling Criminal Cases,” general staff of gambling websites who are not directly involved in organizing gambling activities may not be held criminally liable unless they participate in profit sharing or receive a significantly high fixed salary.

If the actor merely completes general tasks such as visual design according to work instructions, lacking the cognitive conditions or intentional elements regarding the gambling attributes, it cannot be inferred that they subjectively “know”. Therefore, if it is determined that the actor has “subjective knowledge”, it must be comprehensively judged in conjunction with their job authority, scope of contact, salary level, and communication content, rather than mechanically concluding that they “know about gambling” simply because they hold a position in the company or have come into contact with some page materials.

03

The consequences of actions are not “helpful”.

In judicial practice, determining “providing technical support” not only requires examining whether the behavior has technical attributes but also whether it has provided substantive assistance to the conduct of gambling activities. In other words, only when the behavior objectively promotes or strengthens the operation, expansion, or profitability of gambling websites can it be considered “helpful.”

The responsibilities of a UI designer mainly focus on interface optimization and beautification. Their work typically includes adjusting colors, button styles, layout arrangements, etc., with the aim of enhancing the user experience. While these aspects can improve visual effects, they do not have a substantial impact on whether the platform operates normally or has gambling functions. Their work is considered supportive design; even without this part of the work, the functionalities of various sections of the platform can still operate normally.

In simple terms, the presence or absence of a UI designer does not affect the implementation of the gambling module or the conduct of betting activities.

From the perspective of criminal law evaluation, their actions do not correspond to the legal meaning of “assisting gambling activities” and should not be recognized as “technical support” actions in the crime of operating a casino.

In summary, the job responsibilities of a UI designer are fundamentally different from those of “technical support.” To categorically classify such positions as accomplices to the crime of operating a casino not only deviates from the principle of legality in criminal law but also contradicts the rational judgment that should be present in judicial practice.

The timing of the defense is very important.

From the above, we can see that the responsibilities of a UI designer do not align with the legal meaning of “technical support.” However, in reality, as platform employees, one cannot naively assume that not being involved in the platform's contract module work necessarily means they do not constitute the crime of operating a casino.

In practice, if the responsibilities and work boundaries are not clearly explained to the authorities in the early stages, it can easily be misunderstood as providing technical support for the platform's gambling module, leading to misjudgment by the investigators and being incorrectly classified as an accomplice to the crime of operating a casino.

Therefore, the timing of the defense is crucial.

During the investigation phase or the prosecution review phase by the procuratorate, the defense attorney should communicate with the personnel in charge as early as possible, explaining the specific work content and scope of responsibilities of the defendant, and providing corresponding proof materials—such as design drafts, project descriptions, work notes, email records, etc.—to demonstrate that they were only engaged in general interface design work.

Before the case is transferred to the court, these explanations often help the case handlers to re-understand the nature of the position, thus striving for non-prosecution during the prosecution stage.

Conversely, once a case enters the court trial process, the proceedings typically continue along the established direction of the charges.

Even if the job content can be clearly explained in court, the court may, for the sake of overall determination, provide an expansive interpretation of “technical support” and ultimately include design positions within the scope of accomplices.

For example, in case number 0721 of the initial criminal trial 81, the defendant was a staff member of a certain company's UI team, whose job responsibilities included graphic design, specifically the creation of logos for gambling software and images for the gambling software interface. The court deemed that he provided technical support to a gambling website and ultimately sentenced him to three years of imprisonment with probation.

However, if the case has indeed entered the court stage, it is necessary to develop a targeted defense plan based on the specific circumstances of the case. At this time, the focus of the defense should be on restoring job responsibilities, distinguishing the nature of the behavior, and weakening subjective intent. Meanwhile, depending on the evidence, it may be considered to use “aiding and abetting information network crime” (aiding crime) as a defense strategy for a lesser offense, aiming for a more favorable outcome in sentencing.

For example, in case number Yu 1627 Xingchu 237, (, the court found that the defendant, as an assistant UI designer for a certain company, provided technical support for the crime. The defendant claimed that his work was limited to web visual design and that he did not participate in core aspects such as website functionality development, server setup, or fund settlement. Ultimately, the court sentenced him to eight months of imprisonment for aiding and abetting the crime, with a suspended sentence applied.

Written at the end

From practical experience, the term “technical support” in internet gambling crime cases has already deviated from its literal meaning and tends to be interpreted broadly. However, from the perspective of platform employees, this generalized recognition may likely cause some ordinary positions to suffer “unjust blame.” Therefore, the defense should, based on a full understanding of the specific job responsibilities of the parties involved, clarify as much as possible those seemingly vague job boundaries to the case handlers.