EU finance ministers have approved a compromise that would expand the European Securities and Markets Authority’s powers while exempting some major trading venues from centralised oversight. The agreement reflects continuing resistance to transferring financial supervision from national authorities to Brussels.

European Union finance ministers have reached an agreement to expand centralised supervision of financial markets, but Germany has secured provisions allowing important parts of Deutsche Börse to remain under national oversight, substantially narrowing the European Commission’s original reform proposals.

The compromise, agreed at a meeting in Luxembourg on 9 October, would transfer responsibility for supervising selected trading venues, clearing houses and securities settlement institutions to the European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA).

However, the agreement introduces exemptions and thresholds that reduce the number of institutions automatically subject to direct European supervision.

The result is a significant political compromise between governments seeking deeper financial integration and those reluctant to surrender oversight of nationally important market operators.

Berlin secures its exemption

The most contentious element of the negotiations concerned Deutsche Börse, the German financial-market group that operates the Frankfurt stock exchange and provides trading, clearing and other financial infrastructure services.

Germany opposed arrangements that would place all major market operators under direct ESMA supervision, arguing that institutions with predominantly domestic activities should continue to be regulated nationally.

The agreed compromise refines the criteria for determining which trading venues qualify for centralised oversight.

These conditions allow certain Deutsche Börse operations to remain outside the new supervisory regime.

The exemption had already become a point of contention during negotiations among European governments.

As EU Today reported in June, Berlin had sought to protect Deutsche Börse from mandatory European supervision despite Germany’s broader support for integrating EU capital markets.

The October agreement formalises a narrower approach within the Council’s negotiating position, although the legislation remains subject to approval by the European Parliament.

Europe’s fragmented financial markets

The European Commission has repeatedly argued that fragmented national supervision weakens the EU’s ability to compete with financial markets in the United States.

Although the Union operates a single market, many financial institutions continue to face differing regulatory interpretations, procedures and supervisory relationships across member states.

These differences can increase operating costs and discourage financial businesses from expanding across borders.

The Market Integration and Supervision Package is intended to simplify those arrangements and strengthen common oversight of financial infrastructure with significant cross-border activity.

Under the Council’s position, ESMA would assume direct supervision of selected trading platforms and institutions involved in clearing and securities settlement.

Such institutions perform essential functions in financial markets, including managing transactions, transferring securities and controlling risks between counterparties.

Differences in supervisory arrangements can complicate the operation of financial services that increasingly function across national borders.

The Commission argues that greater consistency would allow European capital to move more efficiently between member states and provide businesses with improved access to investment.

Compromise reduces original ambitions

The Commission’s original approach envisaged broader centralisation of supervisory responsibilities.

The Council agreement of 9 October introduces more restrictive criteria governing the institutions that would fall under ESMA’s direct authority.

In addition to the treatment of trading venues, ministers agreed that direct supervision of crypto-asset service providers should initially concentrate on businesses with the most significant cross-border operations.

The Council also supported changes to ESMA’s governance arrangements, including the creation of a full-time executive board.

The proposed board would strengthen the authority’s ability to make supervisory decisions independently of individual national regulators, while preserving mechanisms for cooperation with those authorities.

The compromise also introduces arrangements allowing national supervisors collectively to challenge certain decisions.

These provisions reflect concerns about concentrating regulatory powers within an institution that must oversee financial businesses operating under different national legal systems.

Why capital markets matter for European investment

The supervision reforms form part of the EU’s broader Savings and Investments Union initiative.

European policymakers want to increase the availability of private capital for companies investing in technology, defence, infrastructure and industrial development.

The Union has substantial household savings, but much of that money remains in bank deposits or is invested outside the European economy.

Companies seeking capital for expansion may consequently face higher financing costs or more limited investment opportunities than comparable businesses operating in larger and more integrated markets.

The Commission’s Savings and Investments Union programme seeks to improve access to finance and make cross-border investment more attractive.

Financial-market supervision represents only one element of that programme.

Differences in taxation, insolvency law, national investment products and corporate governance requirements also influence where investors allocate their money.

Nevertheless, regulators regard consistent supervision as an important condition for reducing fragmentation.

Parliament faces a political decision

The agreement reached by finance ministers does not conclude the legislative process.

The European Parliament must adopt its position before negotiations can determine the final provisions.

Parliamentary discussions could revisit the exemptions secured by Germany and the criteria determining which institutions fall under direct ESMA supervision.

The debate will expose differences over whether European financial integration should proceed through incremental reforms or a more substantial transfer of regulatory authority.

Governments supporting national exemptions argue that supervision should reflect the actual geographic scope of a company’s activities.

Supporters of broader European oversight contend that major trading businesses can influence financial markets beyond their home jurisdictions even when individual operations appear predominantly domestic.

The Deutsche Börse exemption has become a prominent example of the conflict between those positions.

Europe’s largest economies broadly support the objective of deeper capital markets, but remain divided over the institutional powers needed to achieve it.

The final legislation will determine whether the expanded responsibilities granted to ESMA are sufficient to reduce fragmentation or leave important parts of Europe’s financial infrastructure operating under substantially different national supervisory systems.

Russian forces attacked Epicentr’s hub in Khmelnytskyi, a city in western Ukraine, 10 times on 13 October, starting five large fires that destroyed about 85% of the goods stored inside, the company said.

Epicentr is a Ukrainian chain of home-improvement and household-goods stores. The attack adds pressure to Ukraine’s logistics network, already damaged by Russian strikes. On 10 September, Ukrainian entrepreneur Ruslan Shostak, co-owner of the popular retail chains Eva and Varus, said that 2.1 million square meters of Ukraine’s modern warehouse space had been destroyed since Russia’s full-scale invasion began. He put the country’s total modern warehouse space at approximately 5 million square meters. The strike on the hub came the same day Russia opened a barrage of 39 ballistic missiles on Ukraine’s power grid.

About 30 drones in the sky kept the fire from being put out, and the hub burned down completely overnight, Epicentr said. None of its people were hurt, the company said.

“The most important thing is that all our people are alive,” Epicentr wrote.

Russia had earlier completely destroyed Epicentr’s two largest logistics complexes, in Kyiv and Kyiv Oblast, the company said. The Khmelnytskyi hub had remained effectively its only surviving large warehouse complex. Goods were sent from there to the company’s shopping centers, and people worked there every day “so that millions of Ukrainians could buy what they need,” it wrote. Epicentr described every such attack as a blow to Ukrainian businesses’ ability to operate, pay wages, preserve jobs, and support the country’s economy.

Epicentr’s earlier losses

Epicentr said in August that 10 of its shopping centers had been completely destroyed since February 2022. Another 13 retail sites had been damaged, and one in Melitopol remained under Russian occupation, it said. At the time, the company operated 70 shopping centers, down from 80 at the end of 2021.

Earlier, during a Russian missile attack overnight on 5 August, Epicentr’s logistics center in Kyiv burned down completely, Epicentr’s Yulia Chudnovets said. The company’s ceramic tile plant in Kalynivka, one of the largest in Ukraine, was effectively lost, she said. One employee was killed and three were injured, she added.

On 25 May 2024, Russian airstrikes on an Epicentr hypermarket in Kharkiv killed 19 people, Interior Minister Ihor Klymenko said.

Attacks across Khmelnytskyi Oblast

Fires broke out at enterprises in Khmelnytskyi and Shepetivka districts on 13 October, Serhii Tiurin, head of the Khmelnytskyi Oblast Military Administration, reported. He did not name the enterprises. On 14 October, Tiurin said one of the fires had been put out, and crews were still fighting the other. Khmelnytskyi Mayor Oleksandr Symchyshyn said six people were injured in Khmelnytskyi district that day, where Russian strikes damaged private enterprises, a gas station, and a medical facility.

O número de processos sobre bets no Tribunal de Justiça do Rio (TJRJ) aumentou 1.087% em dois anos. A quantidade de ações cresceu de 58 para 689, entre 2024 e 2026.

As causas envolvem apostas ganhas e não pagas, alteração das “odds” (cotações sobre valores a receber em caso de acerto), bloqueios de contas e saques, além de cláusulas consideradas abusivas. 

Notícias relacionadas:

• Prazo pra bancos devolverem R$ 1,3 bilhão de bets acaba nesta quarta.
• Bets começam a sair do ar nesta terça-feira.

No dia 25 de setembro, o governo federal proibiu a exploração, oferta e publicidade de apostas e jogos on-line em todo o país.

As empresas com o maior número de ações na Justiça do Rio são a Kaizen Gaming Brasil LTDA, HS do Brasil LTDA e Ana Gaming Brasil, detentoras das marcas Betano, Bet365 e 7K Bet, respectivamente. Contra essas instituições, apostadores cobram mais de R$ 20 milhões, no total. A Agência Brasil tenta contato com as empresas citadas e deixa o espaço aberto para manifestações.

Em resposta, a Ana Gaming explica que o volume de ações judiciais está atrelado ao porte de sua operação e à sua base ativa de usuários, não representando o mérito ou o resultado desses processos, nos quais a companhia apresenta sua defesa e cumpre todas as decisões judiciais. 

Reflexos  

Dados recentes da terceira edição do Boletim Fiscal dos Estados Brasileiros indicam que as famílias brasileiras perderam R$ 62,5 bilhões com bets em 2025. 

O desembargador Peterson Barroso Simão, integrante da Segunda Câmara Criminal do TJRJ, afirma que quando uma atividade passa a absorver recursos nessa dimensão, é natural que seus reflexos cheguem aos tribunais.   

“Temos que reconhecer que determinadas práticas podem produzir riscos que exigem informação, limites de publicidade, mecanismos de proteção e fiscalização mais rigorosa. Foi assim em diversos momentos da história.”

Para o magistrado, prevenir o problema continua sendo mais eficiente – e menos oneroso para o Estado e para a sociedade – do que esperar que o tema se transforme em milhares de processos.

“A pessoa que desenvolveu uma relação compulsiva com o jogo não precisa apenas de uma decisão judicial, precisa de tratamento, apoio psicológico, acompanhamento familiar e condições concretas para reconstruir a vida.”

Segundo o desembargador, é difícil estabelecer, juridicamente, a relação entre a atividade da plataforma e as consequências que se desenvolvem ao longo do tempo, como o endividamento progressivo, o rompimento de relações familiares ou o agravamento de problemas psicológicos.  

“O futuro dessa relação dependerá menos da tecnologia das plataformas e muito mais da capacidade do Estado e da sociedade de estabelecer limites antes que os custos sociais se tornem ainda maiores.”

Matéria alterada às 11h09 para acrescentar posicionamento da empresa Ana Gaming.

Quello che accade fuori dai confini nazionali incide sempre di più sulla vita quotidiana di popoli e Paesi, mettendo a dura prova la capacità italiana di difendere la propria prosperità e la propria sicurezza. Parte da questa premessa la presidente del Consiglio Giorgia Meloni in occasione delle comunicazioni al Senato in vista del Consiglio europeo del 15 e 16 ottobre, per disegnare il perimetro geopolitico di Italia ed Europa.

Le criticità sono molteplici: la guerra che si allarga a macchia d’olio ad altre aree, la competizione economica globale sempre più serrata, le tensioni geopolitiche che impattano sulla sicurezza delle catene di approvvigionamento, come anche sul costo del carburante e della vita, il tema della competitività legato alle minacce ibride e alle pressioni migratorie. C’è tutto questo nell’intervento della premier, che abbraccia a 360 gradi (ma forse anche di più) lo scenario attuale. Elementi che vanno letti intrecciandoli e non scomponendoli. Per questa ragione, rivendica, il “Governo ha scelto di essere presente e attivo sulla scena internazionale, con continuità e con una linea chiara, perché l’interesse nazionale si difende contribuendo a orientare le scelte che ci riguardano, e non limitandosi a subirne le conseguenze”.

Più mercato unico, meno regole

Si parte dall’agenda “One Europe, One Market” e dai progressi compiuti per approfondire il mercato unico, obiettivi sui quali l’Italia insiste da tempo. Ma oggi c’è un elemento che scompagina analisi e riflessioni: il costo dell’energia. Meloni sostiene che non si possa chiedere alle imprese europee di competere con i grandi attori globali e, allo stesso tempo, accettare che paghino strutturalmente l’energia molto più dei loro concorrenti. “Né possiamo perseguire la transizione ambientale al prezzo della nostra base industriale”.

Per questa ragione la risposta non può risiedere nelle scelte di un singolo Stato, ma servono coordinamento e rapidità. In questo senso rivendica l’accordo in ambito G7, che ha previsto il rilascio sui mercati di un quantitativo significativo di carburante, anche per prevenire il rischio di un blocco delle esportazioni americane, che avrebbe pesato duramente sulle nostre economie. Ma non basta: Meloni chiede apertamente “il coraggio di guardare a ciò che possiamo fare noi, in Europa. A partire dalla cosa più scontata: evitare che regole pensate in un contesto completamente diverso da quello che viviamo finiscano oggi per aggravare gli effetti delle crisi che stiamo attraversando”.

Ricorda che pochi giorni fa, con alcuni capi di Stato e di governo più impegnati sul fronte della competitività, ha individuato tre priorità (energia, semplificazione, commercio internazionale), inviando a Bruxelles una proposta di merito articolata in tre mosse: corsie prioritarie per i progetti strategici, un vero freno all’eccesso di burocrazia e una riduzione drastica degli obblighi di reporting, soprattutto per le piccole e medie imprese. Il tutto senza dimenticare il tema Ets. L’obiettivo? Meloni non punta “ad una riga in più nelle conclusioni di un vertice, ma una bolletta più leggera per una famiglia, un costo in meno per un’impresa”.

In questa direzione va la sua rivendicazione sul tema delle regole: “Non siamo qui per difendere le regole dalla realtà, noi siamo qui per difendere i cittadini dalle regole sbagliate e si può fare, grazie all’Italia è accaduto diverse volte”. Come nel caso della clausola di salvaguardia nazionale, con la flessibilità prevista per difesa e sicurezza da utilizzare anche per la crisi energetica. A queste “proposte di buon senso” Meloni lega il tema delle materie prime critiche, ossigeno per difesa e transizione.

Come è noto, l’Ue le importa in larga parte dall’estero, ma “se noi non affrontiamo questo nodo, rischiamo di uscire da una dipendenza solo per entrare in un’altra e questa è anche la ragione per cui l’Italia si è candidata a ospitare a Porto Marghera uno dei primi siti europei di stoccaggio strategico di queste materie, iniziativa che potrebbe diventare un progetto pilota europeo. Il filo che lega tutte queste iniziative, insomma, è semplice: l’Europa deve tornare a mettere la capacità di produrre al centro delle proprie scelte”.

Ucraina, cosa fare? E come?

In secondo luogo il tema bellico, su cui la premier chiede all’Ue di non andare in ordine sparso, dal momento che la strategia con cui la Russia punta a piegare il popolo ucraino è quella del “terrore, del freddo e del buio, semplicemente perché non è riuscita a piegarlo sul campo di battaglia”. Dunque, al netto del dibattito “acceso, anche in quest’Aula, anche all’interno degli schieramenti, lo rispetto e lo comprendo perfino, perché nessuno in quest’Aula vuole la guerra”, chiede punti fermi.

Il primo è arrivare alla pace attraverso il sostegno all’Ucraina, “perché se l’aggressore può puntare alla resa dell’avversario, che bisogno ha di negoziare? Solo che la resa non è pace, è conquista”. La posizione del governo, quindi, non cambia: sostegno a Kyiv, con particolare attenzione alla popolazione civile, pressione su Mosca e unità euro-atlantica “rimangono i pilastri della nostra azione”. In questo contesto, l’intesa sul gasolio russo annunciata venerdì scorso dal presidente degli Stati Uniti Donald Trump è una scelta “che io considero molto rischiosa”.

Sul nome dell’inviato Ue per l’Ucraina, Meloni è schietta: “Se su un nome non si trova convergenza, siamo pronti anche a valutare soluzioni diverse. Se, ad esempio, Francia, Germania e Gran Bretagna, nel famoso formato E3, ritengono di poter fare da sole meglio di quanto potremmo fare tutti insieme, e finora è questa la scelta che hanno fatto, allora almeno lo facciano a nome di tutti e con un mandato ufficiale dato da tutti. Perché sarò onesta: considero secondario il tema di chi siede a quale tavolo. Mi interessa a nome di chi si siede al tavolo, e per dire cosa. Mi interessa che l’Europa non vada in ordine sparso, non offra il fianco a chi ha interesse ad alimentare le divisioni e parli con una voce sola. Perché un’Europa che si divide sui formati offre un’immagine di sé infantile, ed è l’unico vero regalo che possiamo fare a Mosca. E di regali a Mosca, in questi giorni, ne abbiamo fatti abbastanza”.

Sicurezza e difesa

Meloni cerchia in rosso, inoltre, alcune priorità: proteggere le infrastrutture critiche come reti energetiche, cavi sottomarini, porti e aeroporti, sostenere l’industria italiana nel dare un contributo decisivo ai sistemi anti-drone e antimissile e, infine, ribadire che la sicurezza dei confini dell’Unione è indivisibile. Il ragionamento della premier è tarato su un nuovo concetto di difesa, che non si esaurisce più nei carri armati ma abbraccia altri ambiti e altri mezzi.

Difendersi vuol dire anche un ospedale che continua a curare sotto un attacco informatico, una centrale che non si spegne, un aeroporto che non chiude le piste per colpa di un drone. Difendersi non è proteggere un’idea astratta di potenza, ma la vita quotidiana dei cittadini. Quindi, spiega, “senza sicurezza, l’energia costa di più. E senza energia, potrebbe non rimanere nulla da difendere. Per questo abbiamo chiesto, e ottenuto, che la clausola di salvaguardia nazionale potesse essere utilizzata non soltanto per le spese di difesa, ma anche per le misure necessarie ad affrontare la crisi energetica”.

Non manca una stoccata: chi racconta che più sicurezza significa meno ospedali, e risorse sottratte ai servizi essenziali da un governo di guerrafondai, mente sapendo di farlo. “Tanto più se gli stessi che oggi ci accusano dall’opposizione, quando erano al governo approvavano, in piena pandemia, un aumento delle spese militari da 15 miliardi di euro. E allora non c’era neanche la guerra in Ucraina. Ma voglio dirlo a chi ci ascolta, riprendendo un ragionamento del ministro Crosetto, che ringrazio. Ogni 100 euro che lo Stato spende per la Difesa, circa 60 pagano gli stipendi di chi difende la nostra sicurezza, quasi 280 mila donne e uomini in divisa. Circa 10 euro servono a far funzionare le strutture ogni giorno. Circa 30 vanno in investimenti, in un comparto industriale che dà lavoro a oltre 300 mila persone, spesso altamente qualificate, in migliaia di piccole e medie imprese diffuse in tutta Italia. Chi parla di spreco dovrebbe anche spiegare a quelle famiglie che il loro lavoro è inutile. E quando compriamo, cosa compriamo? Prevalentemente strumenti per difenderci. Difesa aerea, sistemi anti-drone, cyber-sicurezza, protezione delle infrastrutture. Compriamo scudi”.

Gli equilibri in Medio Oriente

Meloni definisce il 7 ottobre 2023 un attacco barbaro, che ha gettato l’intera regione nel caos. “Credo che sia importante ricordarlo anche oggi, perché qualsiasi legittimo approccio critico verso le azioni del Governo israeliano nei tre anni successivi non può e non deve mai farci dimenticare quello che è stato il più orrendo pogrom dai tempi della Shoah, pianificato ed eseguito da Hamas”. Se da un lato la sicurezza dello Stato di Israele non può essere messa in discussione, dall’altro preoccupa il perdurare della presenza israeliana nel sud del Libano, in Siria e a Gaza. La premier ribadisce inoltre che gli insediamenti israeliani in Cisgiordania sono illegali e si oppone con forza a chi sostiene l’annessione e lo spostamento forzato della popolazione palestinese.

Cosa può fare l’Europa in questo frangente? “Riprendersi lo spazio che può occupare. E la finestra per farlo si aprirà, inevitabilmente, con l’insediamento del nuovo Governo israeliano, chiunque dovesse vincere le elezioni. Sarà quello il momento per chiedere gesti capaci di invertire la spirale negativa da troppo tempo in atto e di riaprire, in prospettiva, un percorso politico di pace”. La sua proposta all’Ue è lavorare al trasferimento all’Autorità palestinese delle entrate fiscali che Israele oggi trattiene, al congelamento dell’insediamento E1, a più aiuti per Gaza (senza che vengano drenati da Hamas) e a un’iniziativa politica per verificare se Hamas sia davvero disposta a deporre le armi.

I nuovi flussi migratori

Sul tema Meloni rivendica che l’approccio europeo è cambiato in modo significativo in questi anni, grazie al contributo decisivo dell’Italia, che “sta producendo risultati concreti”, come dimostrano i dati di Frontex: in due anni gli attraversamenti irregolari delle frontiere esterne dell’Unione si sono più che dimezzati. A proposito di Ceuta, ricorda poi che il Codice Schengen prevede espressamente la possibilità di reintrodurre temporaneamente i controlli alle frontiere interne per esigenze di ordine pubblico o di sicurezza. Si tratta, di fatto, di uno strumento utilizzato regolarmente dal 2006 a oggi.

Ma Ceuta ha insegnato anche un’altra cosa: “Una crisi alle frontiere non sempre nasce da sola, a volte viene costruita. I trafficanti la organizzano, i social la amplificano, la disinformazione la alimenta. Chi usa persone disperate come arma di pressione sui nostri confini non sta solo forzando una frontiera. Sta attaccando l’Europa e l’Europa deve dotarsi degli strumenti per rispondere”.

E ancora: “Se passa il messaggio che un ingresso irregolare può trasformarsi successivamente in una permanenza legale il rischio è alimentare nuove partenze, rafforzare il modello di affari dei trafficanti e vanificare parte degli sforzi che stiamo facendo per ridurre gli arrivi irregolari. E non ce lo possiamo permettere”. In questa direzione vanno gli sforzi del governo su progetti concreti come il Piano Mattei per l’Africa (“nato dalla convinzione che il rapporto tra Europa e Africa debba fondarsi su partenariati paritari, investimenti e crescita condivisa”) e su soluzioni innovative come i centri in Albania e i “return hubs” nei Paesi terzi, esplicitamente previsti dalle norme europee.

L’Europa di domani

Infine, un passaggio di prospettiva. La premier tocca un nervo scoperto, il futuro dell’Europa, su cui sono stati scritti paper, studi e analisi. Meloni dice la sua e sottolinea che l’Europa deve decidere cosa fare da grande, “se continuare a scrivere regole come se nulla fosse cambiato, oppure può guardare la realtà per quello che è, e dotarsi degli strumenti per difendere la propria economia, la propria sicurezza, la propria libertà”.

È a questa seconda prospettiva che lavora Palazzo Chigi: un’Europa capace di tenere insieme transizione e industria, politiche tradizionali e nuove priorità, cooperazione con i partner e difesa dei propri confini. “Un’Europa pragmatica, che non ha paura di correggere le proprie scelte quando la realtà cambia. Un’Europa che concentra la sua forza sulle grandi sfide che nessuna Nazione può affrontare da sola, e sa farsi da parte dove le Nazioni fanno meglio da sole. Un’Europa grande sulle grandi questioni, e discreta su tutto il resto”.

E conclude: “Per anni ci hanno detto che, per contare in Europa, l’Italia doveva rinunciare a difendere i propri interessi. Abbiamo dimostrato il contrario. Perché un’Europa forte ha bisogno di Nazioni forti. E si può lavorare per un’Europa più solida e credibile senza smettere, neanche per un minuto, di difendere l’Italia con orgoglio”.

Acaba nesta quarta-feira (14) o prazo para os bancos e as instituições financeiras devolverem cerca de R$ 1,325 bilhão que permaneceu nas contas de apostadores após o encerramento das plataformas de apostas on-line, determinado pela Medida Provisória (MP) 1.394/2026, do governo federal.

A restituição, que começou na última sexta-feira (9), deve beneficiar aproximadamente 26,5 milhões de apostadores.

Notícias relacionadas:

• Bets: mais de R$ 1 bilhão foram devolvidos a apostadores.
• Bancos começam a devolver R$ 1,3 bilhão a apostadores de bets.
• Polícia de SP prende três suspeitos de explorar bets.

O prazo para retirar voluntariamente os valores nas plataformas terminou às 23h59 de do último dia 5. No dia seguinte, os sites e aplicativos afetados pela medida começaram a sair do ar.

As empresas de apostas tiveram até a última quinta-feira (8) para encaminhar às instituições financeiras os dados dos saldos vinculados aos CPFs e às contas bancárias utilizadas nos depósitos.

>> Mais de R$ 1 bilhão foi devolvido a apostadores até sábado

Como receber

A devolução está sendo realizada pelas instituições financeiras, conforme o cronograma estabelecido pelo governo. Os apostadores devem acompanhar as movimentações da conta bancária utilizada para depositar dinheiro nas plataformas.

Veja as principais datas:

• 5 de outubro: fim do prazo para saque voluntário nas plataformas;
• 6 de outubro: início da retirada do ar dos sites e aplicativos afetados;
• 7 e 8 de outubro: envio dos dados dos saldos aos bancos;
• 9 a 14 de outubro: período previsto para a devolução pelas instituições financeiras;
• A partir de 14 de outubro: a Caixa Econômica Federal assume os casos em que houver impedimentos operacionais.

Dinheiro na Caixa

Se a devolução não for concluída por dificuldades operacionais, os valores remanescentes serão encaminhados à Caixa Econômica Federal a partir desta quarta-feira. O banco ficará responsável por intermediar os pagamentos pendentes.

Segundo o Ministério da Fazenda, as orientações para os apostadores nessa etapa serão divulgadas pelos canais oficiais. Por isso, é importante acompanhar os comunicados do governo e da instituição financeira.

Saldos pequenos

Parte significativa dos recursos está distribuída em contas com valores muito baixos. Segundo o governo, 86,2 milhões de contas mantinham saldos entre R$ 0,01 e R$ 0,99, que somavam R$ 15,5 milhões.

O número de contas é superior ao de apostadores porque uma mesma pessoa pode ter cadastro em diferentes plataformas.

Valores sob investigação

O governo também acompanha os saldos elevados que permaneceram nas plataformas. Segundo o ministro da Fazenda, Dario Durigan, cerca de 40 CPFs estão sob análise devido aos montantes mantidos nas contas, para apurar possíveis irregularidades, incluindo suspeitas de lavagem de dinheiro.

A medida provisória que determinou o encerramento das operações abrangidas pela decisão foi publicada em 25 de setembro e ainda precisa ser aprovada pelo Congresso Nacional dentro do prazo legal para continuar em vigor.

Atenção a golpes

Para evitar fraudes durante a devolução dos recursos, os apostadores devem:

• Consultar os canais oficiais do governo e dos bancos;
• Desconfiar de mensagens que cobrem taxas para liberar o dinheiro;
• Não fornecer senhas ou códigos bancários a terceiros;
• Confirmar diretamente com a instituição financeira qualquer informação sobre o pagamento.

A restituição deve seguir o cronograma oficial. Não há necessidade de pagar quaisquer valores antecipados para receber o saldo.

Ukraine wants the EU to force Moscow into a ceasefire with frozen Russian assets, trade and transit embargoes, maritime bans, and entry bans, Ukrainian Foreign Minister Andrii Sybiha wrote on X after the EU Foreign Affairs Council in Luxembourg on 12 October 2026. He also welcomed new EU sanctions listings adopted that day and progress in Ukraine’s EU accession talks.

Kyiv has spent this month laying out truce formats it would accept while awaiting Russia’s position on talks, and the levers it is pressing the EU to use include frozen Russian assets that EU leaders failed to agree on tapping last December.

The pressure Kyiv wants from the EU

Sybiha called it “devastating pressure.” He also wants Russian combatants and their families barred from the EU, maximum visa restrictions, and Russia’s isolation in culture and sports.

I was pleased to attend the EU Foreign Affairs Council today.

It is time for Europe to define its strong role. Our future and our security are in our hands.

Now is the time for real European pressure on Moscow. Not half-measures, but devastating pressure: frozen assets, trade… pic.twitter.com/AnI8h6HXbs

— Andrii Sybiha (@andrii_sybiha) October 12, 2026

His post named three types of ceasefire—energy, food security, and a full ceasefire—without saying whether Kyiv would accept them separately. Earlier this month, he told journalists Ukraine was ready for an energy and Black Sea ceasefire “but only in such a combination.”

New sanctions listings and two more accession clusters

The minister welcomed the EU’s 12 October adoption of new sanctions listings against Russia—the largest single expansion of the bloc’s blacklist. EU ambassadors agreed on the 1,646 names on 7 October. They include 1,569 tied to Russia’s military industry and 77 to its so-called State Duma elections. The listings are separate from the EU’s 22nd sanctions package, which the EU has yet to adopt.

He also welcomed the EU’s “green light” for opening two more clusters in Ukraine’s EU accession talks: Internal Market, and Competitiveness and Inclusive Growth. The formal opening was scheduled for an intergovernmental conference on 13 October.

Front-line briefing and aid requests

Sybiha said he briefed European colleagues on the front-line situation, Russia’s plans, and ways to deprive it of its advantages, and that he passed partners specific requests for aid. He reaffirmed Ukraine’s commitment to reforms.

Germany is preparing a new meeting of the Coalition of the Willing to coordinate further support for Ukraine, President Volodymyr Zelenskyy said on 12 October following a conversation with German Chancellor Friedrich Merz.

Russia continues to strike Ukraine’s energy infrastructure despite US President Donald Trump’s claim that Moscow has agreed to an energy truce. German Chancellor Friedrich Merz is initiating a meeting of European leaders to discuss assistance to Ukraine in this situation.

Kyiv and Berlin have also agreed to hold a meeting of national security advisers in the E3 format, with Ukraine participating, according to the statement. The format involves an informal grouping of three leading European countries: the United Kingdom, France and Germany.

Zelenskyy and Merz discuss energy truce and support for Ukraine

During the conversation, the two sides also discussed US President Donald Trump’s proposal for an energy truce and Russia’s subsequent actions. Russian forces continue to attack Ukraine’s energy infrastructure, Zelenskyy noted.

“This is exactly how the Russians behave when pressure eases. It is very important that Europe continue to act on principle,” Zelenskyy stressed.

Germany is coordinating preparations for a meeting of the Coalition of the Willing, the Ukrainian president noted. The two sides also discussed support for Ukraine’s financial stability. Further steps are to be coordinated in greater detail during a meeting scheduled for this week, Zelenskyy said.

The Coalition of the Willing seeks additional support for Ukraine

The Coalition of the Willing was initiated by the United Kingdom and France, which held talks with representatives of 37 countries in March 2025 on supporting Ukraine in the event of a peace agreement. The initiative envisaged financial assistance and the deployment of troops, air forces or naval forces to protect Ukraine against renewed Russian aggression, Bloomberg reported.

The latest meeting of the Coalition of the Willing took place on 24 August and was the 16th meeting, according to a statement on the website of the President of Ukraine. Zelenskyy called on partners to strengthen Ukraine’s air defense and provide at least 300 missiles for Patriot systems for the winter, the statement said.

The president also proposed bringing forward part of the European loan financing planned for 2027 so that Ukraine could receive the funds this year. He separately stressed the need to find a mechanism for using frozen Russian assets to defend Ukraine and to unblock the maritime corridor in the Black Sea.

“We value this format—the Coalition of the Willing. It brings together countries that are ready not only to talk about security but also to act. We need this—to act and build real security together,” Zelenskyy stressed.

A ceasefire in words, but fresh attacks on energy infrastructure in practice

Ukraine and Russia had allegedly agreed to an immediate energy ceasefire, US President Donald Trump said on Truth Social on 11 October. However, at the time of publication, neither Kyiv nor Moscow had confirmed such an agreement, Ukrainska Pravda reported.

Ukraine supports the ceasefire and is awaiting details from the US side, Volodymyr Zelenskyy said in a post on X the same day. Russia must also agree to halt the strikes, he stressed.

Ukrainian forces had received the relevant orders, and Kyiv was ready to refrain from striking Russian energy infrastructure provided Russia reciprocated, Zelenskyy said in his evening address on 11 October.

Russia continued attacking Ukraine’s energy infrastructure after the ceasefire was announced, including striking a gas production facility and a petrol station, Zelenskyy said on his official Telegram channel on 12 October. Moscow had shown no willingness to abide by the ceasefire, the president added.

The European Parliament has delivered a sharp rebuke to Ireland’s proposals for the EU’s next seven-year budget, warning that cuts to competitiveness, security and regional development could leave Europe dangerously ill-equipped to confront mounting geopolitical and economic challenges.

The European Union is heading towards a potentially bruising institutional confrontation over its next long-term budget, after senior Members of the European Parliament rejected proposals from the Irish Presidency of the Council to reduce the European Commission’s spending plans by eight per cent.

The dispute concerns the Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF) for 2028–2034, which will determine not merely how much Brussels spends, but the extent to which Europe can deliver on its increasingly ambitious political, economic and security objectives.

At stake is a fundamental question: can the European Union realistically aspire to become a more competitive, strategically independent global power while its member states resist providing the financial resources necessary to achieve those ambitions?

Parliament Draws a Red Line

In a statement published on 10th October, Parliament’s principal budget negotiators, Siegfried Mureșan of the European People’s Party and Carla Tavares of the Socialists and Democrats, firmly rejected the Irish negotiating framework.

They were joined by Danuše Nerudová and Sandra Gómez López, Parliament’s co-rapporteurs responsible for developing new sources of EU revenue.

Their objections centre on the proposed reduction of approximately €141 billion from the Commission’s original spending plans.

Mureșan warned that the reductions would undermine Europe’s ability to respond to growing demands for defence, economic competitiveness and security.

He also highlighted the erosion of the EU budget’s purchasing power, which Parliament estimates has declined by approximately ten per cent because of inflation.

The implication is uncomfortable for national governments: maintaining apparently substantial expenditure figures does not necessarily translate into maintaining Europe’s capacity to act.

Ireland’s Difficult Balancing Act

Ireland, currently holding the rotating Council Presidency, has attempted to reconcile two increasingly contradictory political demands.

On one side stand governments seeking greater investment in defence, technological innovation, economic resilience and geopolitical influence.

On the other are national finance ministries confronting constrained public finances, mounting borrowing costs and electorates increasingly resistant to additional expenditure.

The Irish Presidency’s proposal envisages approximately €1.62 trillion in commitments, expressed in 2025 prices, representing a substantial increase over the existing seven-year framework.

Dublin argues that its negotiating position offers an ambitious but financially realistic compromise, preserving traditional agricultural and cohesion spending while accommodating emerging priorities.

Yet the European Parliament remains unconvinced.

Particularly contentious are proposed reductions of 12.8 per cent in competitiveness expenditure and 17.4 per cent in external action compared with the Commission’s plans.

These are precisely the areas in which Brussels has repeatedly promised greater international influence.

Defence Ambitions Meet Financial Reality

The timing could scarcely be more awkward. Russia’s continuing aggression against Ukraine has exposed Europe’s dependence on American military capabilities, while mounting geopolitical uncertainty has reinforced demands for greater European strategic autonomy.

Meanwhile, competition from China and the United States is placing European industries under unprecedented pressure.

Brussels regularly speaks of technological sovereignty, stronger defence industries and reduced dependence on external suppliers, however, those objectives require sustained investment.

Cutting expenditure intended to strengthen competitiveness while simultaneously demanding that European companies compete more effectively internationally risks becoming an exercise in political contradiction.

Nevertheless, Parliament’s position deserves scrutiny too. Greater expenditure does not automatically produce better outcomes. Europe’s problems with fragmented defence procurement, regulatory complexity and slow implementation cannot simply be resolved by increasing budget allocations.

A credible financial settlement must therefore combine sufficient resources with demonstrably improved efficiency and accountability.

The Battle Over Europe’s Own Resources

Perhaps the most consequential disagreement concerns how the Union should finance its expenditure.

Parliament has repeatedly argued that the EU must develop additional independent revenue streams rather than relying excessively on contributions from national governments.

Its proposals include levies associated with digital services, online gambling and cryptocurrency capital gains. MEPs believe these measures could generate approximately €30 billion beyond the additional revenue already envisaged by the Commission.

The Irish Presidency has advanced a revenue package that it estimates could eventually raise around €55 billion annually, but agreement among member states remains elusive.

This disagreement exposes an enduring weakness in European integration.

Governments frequently demand collective European action while remaining reluctant to surrender control over the financial mechanisms necessary to support it.

A Political Confrontation With Serious Consequences

The institutional arithmetic makes Parliament’s opposition particularly significant. Although member states must unanimously approve the long-term financial framework, the European Parliament must also provide its consent by an absolute majority of MEPs. Consequently, national governments cannot simply impose a settlement over parliamentary objections.

Equally, the European Parliament cannot compel governments to finance its preferred spending programme. Both institutions therefore possess considerable negotiating leverage, raising the possibility of prolonged political deadlock.

The forthcoming European Council discussions on 15–16th October will provide an important indication of whether governments are prepared to reconsider their positions.

Europe’s Credibility Is on the Line

Ultimately, this dispute extends far beyond accounting. The European Union faces an increasingly hostile strategic environment, persistent economic challenges and growing demands for collective action.

Yet its institutional ambitions continue to outpace agreement on the financial commitments required to fulfil them.

Parliament is justified in questioning whether reducing investment in competitiveness and security represents prudent financial management or potentially damaging short-termism. National governments, however, are equally entitled to demand evidence that additional European expenditure will produce measurable benefits.

The solution cannot be unlimited spending, nor can it be indiscriminate austerity. Europe requires a budget that reflects its strategic responsibilities, backed by rigorous financial discipline and transparent political priorities.

Without such a settlement, the Union risks discovering that its greatest obstacle to becoming a serious geopolitical actor is not opposition from Washington, Moscow or Beijing, but its own inability to agree on the price of its ambitions.

The study challenges prevailing views on the evolution of language A new study conducted by Hungarian researchers reveals that dogs can segment continuous speech into words—a capability previously observed only in humans. Hungarian researchers from Budapest have discovered that human speech changes the way dogs’ brains work, even though the animals cannot speak themselves. The […]

France faces growing pressure from eurozone governments and financial markets to secure its 2027 budget as borrowing costs climb towards levels not seen for more than two decades, raising questions about Paris’s ability to restore control over its public finances.

France is coming under increasingly direct pressure from its eurozone partners to resolve the political dispute surrounding its 2027 budget, with European finance ministers warning that continued uncertainty threatens confidence in the country’s public finances.

The warning follows a sharp increase in French government borrowing costs. Yields on ten-year sovereign bonds have risen by nearly 80 basis points since September, reaching levels last recorded in 2002. Investors are demanding higher returns to finance a government whose debt continues to increase while its capacity to impose spending restraint remains constrained by parliamentary divisions.

At the Eurogroup’s October discussions, finance ministers and European Central Bank officials pressed Paris to demonstrate that it can adopt a credible budget and comply with its commitments under the EU’s fiscal framework.

France’s difficulties have implications beyond its domestic politics. As the eurozone’s second-largest economy, France occupies a position fundamentally different from smaller countries that experienced sovereign debt crises during the previous decade.

Borrowing costs expose political weakness

The French government expects to borrow approximately €340 billion in 2027, making continued access to financial markets at sustainable rates an essential element of its fiscal strategy.

That financing requirement reflects both the need to cover the annual deficit and to refinance existing debt as government securities mature.

France’s public debt is already approaching 120 per cent of gross domestic product. As EU Today previously reported, official projections indicated that the debt ratio could reach 121.7 per cent in 2027, up from 115.7 per cent at the end of 2025.

The latest increase in yields adds another complication. Higher interest costs do not affect the entire stock of debt immediately because much of it was issued at earlier rates. They do, however, increase the cost of new borrowing and refinancing, progressively reducing the money available for other government commitments.

France also faces a difficult political timetable. With the presidential election approaching in 2027, parties are reluctant to accept measures involving spending reductions, higher taxation or changes to public services.

Prime Minister Sébastien Lecornu’s government has been attempting to reduce the deficit from an estimated 5.4 per cent of GDP in 2026 towards five per cent. Even that objective remains substantially above the EU’s three per cent reference value.

Brussels has limited room to compromise

Economic Commissioner Valdis Dombrovskis has emphasised the importance of predictable fiscal policy and credible deficit reduction.

France is already subject to the EU’s excessive deficit procedure, under which member states must demonstrate progress towards agreed fiscal objectives.

The reformed European fiscal framework permits certain deviations from expenditure commitments in exceptional circumstances, but it does not provide an unrestricted exemption from debt sustainability requirements.

Paris therefore faces a double constraint. It must convince domestic political forces to support a budget while demonstrating to Brussels that its spending plans are sufficiently credible.

The danger is not necessarily an immediate financing crisis. France retains a large, diversified economy, deep financial markets and substantial tax-raising capacity.

The more immediate risk is that prolonged political deadlock produces progressively higher borrowing costs, making future fiscal adjustments more expensive.

Why the ECB cannot simply intervene

The European Central Bank has instruments designed to counter destabilising market conditions, but these are not intended to finance governments that are unwilling or unable to implement sustainable fiscal policies.

Bank of France Governor Emmanuel Moulin said on 7 October that France did not currently require ECB assistance. He argued that the solution lay in adopting a credible budget rather than expecting monetary intervention.

His position follows increasing speculation about whether the ECB could intervene if French bond yields continue rising.

Such intervention would raise difficult questions about the relationship between monetary policy and national fiscal responsibility. The ECB must consider financial stability across the entire eurozone, but it cannot remove the political obligations of individual governments.

France’s existing excessive deficit procedure also complicates its eligibility for certain forms of exceptional support.

The wider European consequences

France’s problems are developing at a particularly difficult moment for European public finances.

Governments are confronting higher defence commitments, expensive measures to protect households against energy inflation and demands for greater investment in industrial competitiveness.

Italy, another heavily indebted eurozone economy, is facing related pressures. The combination places additional importance on the credibility of the EU’s fiscal rules.

The political consequences within France are already visible. Marine Le Pen has presented a programme proposing €140 billion in spending reductions, while other parties have advanced sharply different approaches to taxation, debt and public expenditure.

Those competing programmes illustrate the difficulty of securing a parliamentary consensus capable of reassuring markets.

The approaching presidential election reduces the likelihood of a durable settlement before voters choose France’s next head of state.

Eurozone partners cannot resolve that impasse from Brussels or Frankfurt. They can insist on fiscal commitments and provide a framework for adjustment, but the political decisions remain with Paris.

France’s immediate challenge is to prevent its budget dispute from becoming a broader loss of confidence in the government’s capacity to manage its finances.

Aviation is one of the most effective ways to counter Russia’s jet-powered drones. Its effectiveness continues to grow due to pilots’ skill and better coordination, Defense Minister Yevhenii Khmara says, Glavcom reports.

Russia’s jet-powered Gerans fly several times faster than the propeller Shaheds Ukraine learned to shoot down, and they remain the main challenge for its air defense. Ukraine downs more than 90% of the slow drones but only about 55% of the jet ones.

“Due to them, our aviation now uses fewer munitions per aerial target. We plan to improve this further,” Khmara states.

Air defense works as a layered system because no single type of weapon is enough, he explains. The layers run from surface-to-air and shoulder-fired missiles to turrets, electronic warfare, interceptor-drone crews, and small-scale air defense, topped by aircraft including Mirage and F-16 jets.

Scaling what works against jet drones

Ukraine already has combat results against the jet drones, Khmara notes. In one engagement, five Bars interceptors destroyed five aerial targets, a 100% hit rate in that case, and the task now is to raise the overall destruction rate and quickly scale the solutions that prove themselves.

Heavy-caliber turrets are adding to that. Their number in service already runs into the hundreds, he adds.

“This direction is being scaled, and systems with greater range are being worked on. In parallel, surface-to-air and shoulder-fired missile systems are also proving effective,” he says.

Preparing for the next generation

Ukraine is also looking past today’s threats, the minister stresses. The ministry is working to supply interceptor drones, aviation and its munitions, missile and artillery systems, turrets and electronic warfare gear, and to plan several steps ahead with enough stock in reserve.

“We also know what solutions Russia is developing, which concern jet drones with a speed of 800 kilometers per hour. We are working on finding countermeasures to the next generation of threats,” Khmara says.

Producers have been tasked with offering proposals and prototypes, he concludes.

US President Donald Trump said on 9 October that he had agreed with Russian leader Vladimir Putin to bring Russian diesel to world markets to lower energy prices. However, energy analysts say the deal, which drew fury in Ukraine, is unlikely to lower diesel prices meaningfully, CNN reports.

Trump wrote on social media that Putin would “immediately supply” more than 300,000 tons of diesel, with another 500,000 tons in November. Together, those volumes would cover about a day and a half of US demand, according to the US Energy Information Administration.

Meanwhile, former head of the Center for Countering Disinformation Andrii Kovalenko says that US diesel consumption alone is about 16 million tons per month, and global consumption is roughly 120 million tons.

The US experts read the move as politics more than a market shift. Trump spoke in tons rather than barrels because the figure looks bigger to an ordinary observer, said Dan Pickering, founder of Pickering Energy Partners, calling it “more politics than a game changer.”

Doubts Russia can even deliver

Former US officials question whether Putin holds the diesel Trump described, as Ukrainian strikes strain Russia’s refineries. A former senior State Department official says it hardly matters whether the fuel arrives, because Putin “has already achieved the result he wants,” with Trump believing he has a pre-election card that could move markets.

Even if the fuel flows, it would be a temporary measure. Gregory Brew of Eurasia Group says that he suspects Putin expects Ukraine to halt its strikes on Russian refineries in return, and that he cannot imagine Zelenskyy agreeing.

A win for Putin without conditions

For Putin, the gain is plain, Kovalenko says: he pushes for sanctions relief and for no new US sanctions, all without any demand to end the war in Ukraine.

"Trump’s bet was more on the news itself, driving prices down somewhat, because, in reality, figures like these shouldn’t bring prices down," Kovalеnkо believes.

He adds that Trump will "make a big fuss about diesel ahead of the elections, nothing more," and that the average American is unlikely to feel any lasting effect.”

Earlier, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy warned that allowing Russia to sell petroleum products abroad without securing a lasting de-escalation agreement would help finance Moscow's war against Ukraine.

He criticized the decision, calling it "a birthday gift for Putin," per Axios.

The next day after the announcement, Russia launched six bombs on Zaporizhzhia, killing 17 people.

President Donald Trump announced an agreement with Vladimir Putin on Friday, 9th October, under which Russia will resume substantial diesel exports to American and international markets, despite Washington’s existing sanctions against Moscow over its invasion of Ukraine.

According to Trump’s announcement following the telephone conversation, Russia will immediately release more than 300,000 tonnes of diesel, followed by 500,000 tonnes in November and another million tonnes shortly afterwards. A further three million tonnes could become available once Russian refining capacity permits.

The announcement was accompanied by a temporary authorisation from the US Treasury allowing transactions involving Russian diesel until 7 April 2027. It represents a substantial departure from the administration’s recent sanctions policy, which had sought to restrict Russian energy revenues and strengthen Washington’s negotiating position over Ukraine.

The timing is politically significant. Trump faces congressional midterm elections on 3 November, while diesel prices have become a growing economic concern for American businesses and consumers. The agreement gives the White House an opportunity to present itself as addressing fuel costs, although its practical effect on prices remains uncertain.

Russian diesel cannot resolve the global supply shortage

Trump has linked the proposed Russian deliveries to his administration’s efforts to restore energy flows through the Strait of Hormuz, arguing that the combined measures will produce a rapid reduction in diesel prices.

The disruption of maritime energy supplies following the confrontation with Iran has, however, created a problem considerably larger than the quantities Russia has initially promised.

The first two deliveries amount to approximately 800,000 tonnes. Even including the subsequent million tonnes, the announced volumes are modest relative to global consumption. Their arrival may provide temporary relief in individual markets, but there is little evidence that they could independently reverse the wider shortage.

Russia’s capacity to maintain larger exports is also uncertain.

Ukrainian attacks on Russian refineries have disrupted production and contributed to restrictions on petroleum exports. Moscow has periodically imposed limits to protect domestic supplies, while damaged facilities require repairs before returning to normal operations.

The condition of those refineries is explicitly acknowledged in Trump’s announcement, which makes the proposed additional three million tonnes dependent on their recovery.

This introduces a further contradiction. Washington is seeking Russian diesel at precisely the moment Ukraine is attempting to reduce Moscow’s capacity to refine and export petroleum products.

The economic benefits of the agreement may consequently depend partly on developments in a military campaign that the United States has previously supported through intelligence cooperation with Kyiv.

Zelenskyy rejects sanctions relief without Russian concessions

President Volodymyr Zelenskyy responded critically to the agreement, describing the relaxation of economic pressure as a concession to Putin that had not been accompanied by any meaningful Russian commitment to de-escalation.

In his response to the American decision, Zelenskyy argued that Moscow would exploit renewed export revenues to prolong its war rather than make concessions towards a settlement.

Ukraine has indicated that it remains prepared to consider reciprocal measures concerning attacks on energy infrastructure. Such arrangements would require Russia to stop striking Ukrainian facilities in exchange for restrictions on Ukrainian operations against Russian energy targets.

No comparable undertaking was announced as part of Friday’s diesel agreement.

This distinction is central to Kyiv’s objections. Sanctions relief has traditionally been regarded as leverage to obtain changes in Russian behaviour. In the present arrangement, Moscow stands to receive additional commercial opportunities without publicly agreeing to alter its military campaign.

Lukoil negotiations raise further questions

The agreement also comes amid separate discussions concerning the international assets of Lukoil, Russia’s second-largest oil producer.

A recent account of negotiations involving American investors and Russian officials described proposals involving Lukoil’s overseas oilfields, refineries and distribution businesses.

The discussions have reportedly involved figures connected to Trump’s diplomatic efforts, including Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner, alongside Russian representatives.

On Friday, another development complicated the proposed transaction when Carlyle withdrew from the competition to acquire Lukoil’s international assets, previously valued at approximately $22 billion.

The negotiations illustrate the extent to which potential commercial cooperation has entered the broader American-Russian relationship.

There is no verified evidence, however, that the diesel agreement was concluded to facilitate a particular acquisition or benefit individuals connected to Trump’s administration. The commercial negotiations and Friday’s sanctions decision remain separate developments unless further evidence establishes a direct connection.

Washington and Europe move in different directions

The American decision creates an additional complication for European sanctions policy.

On 7th October, EU ambassadors agreed to expand sanctions against Russia’s military-industrial network, approving 1,646 additional designations, many directed at the production of ballistic missiles used against Ukraine.

Britain has also introduced further restrictions on Russian oil-related businesses, tankers and financial intermediaries, reinforcing its stated objective of limiting Moscow’s ability to finance the war.

The contrast with Washington’s diesel authorisation is substantial. While European governments are attempting to restrict Russian petroleum revenues, the United States is providing a temporary legal route for renewed sales.

The development also recalls the difficulties already examined by EU Today in its reporting on sanctions enforcement against Russia’s shadow fleet, where differences in national restrictions and their application have complicated efforts to control petroleum exports.

For Moscow, the significance of Friday’s agreement extends beyond the immediate revenue generated by diesel sales. It establishes that the United States is prepared to relax particular economic restrictions before securing a settlement over Ukraine.

Whether the arrangement ultimately lowers American fuel prices will depend on production, shipping and international market conditions. The diplomatic consequence is already apparent: Russia has obtained an opportunity to restore part of its international energy trade without accepting publicly announced conditions concerning its war against Ukraine.

For Kyiv and European governments, the question is whether this remains a narrowly defined response to an energy shortage or marks the beginning of a broader American policy of separating commercial relations with Moscow from negotiations over Ukraine.

Ukrainian forces are advancing east of Sloviansk and Kramatorsk, and even Russian milbloggers now acknowledge it, the Institute for the Study of War (ISW) said on 8 October. The gains may follow months of groundwork like the one that preceded Operation Vivaldi near Lyman, which Ukraine says returned 176 km² to its control. Russian commentators are already doubting that Moscow can reach the two cities.

Russia's years-long push on the Fortress Belt, the chain of cities anchoring Ukraine's defense in Donetsk Oblast, has been stalling since Vivaldi began. Unable to take those cities, Russia keeps hitting them from the air. On 8 October, a Russian bomb killed 30 people on two buses in Kramatorsk.

Across the Siverskyi Donets

Russian milbloggers said Ukrainian forces liberated Ozerne and advanced east of Pyskunivka toward Kryva Luka, ISW reported. They also acknowledged that Ukrainian troops drove Russian forces out of Pyskunivka. Ukrainians are now counterattacking toward Kryva Luka from the west and northwest, from across the river.

ISW called the repeated Russian claims of a river crossing notable, because the Siverskyi Donets is a significant natural obstacle. Kryva Luka is a dominant height just south of the river. From there, Ukraine could launch further counterattacks. Ukrainian forces appear to have pushed Russian troops off both banks in this area, ISW assessed.

The heights Russia wanted

After Vivaldi cleared ground near Lyman in September, Russia shifted its push south toward Mykolaivka and Sloviansk. Russian forces likely see Mykolaivka, just east of Sloviansk, as a primary objective, ISW said. Its heights would favor an offensive on the city. Ukrainian pushes northeast and southeast of the town now deny Russia that terrain.

East of Kramatorsk, milbloggers claimed Ukrainians liberated Malynivka and advanced between Fedorivka Druha and Holubivka. They also reported gains into southern Minkivka and near Fedorivka. The lines remain tangled. Geolocated footage shows Ukrainian forces striking a Russian position in central Tykhonivka after what ISW assesses was a Russian infiltration.

ISW said the counterattacks may point to a broader Ukrainian goal: pushing Russian forces east, away from the Sloviansk–Kramatorsk area and toward the Siverskyi Donets–Donbas Canal.

The Vivaldi playbook

The counterattacks have run for weeks. On 29 September, Ukrainian military observer Kostiantyn Mashovets reported them in the same areas, saying Russia's 3rd Combined Arms Army had failed to make significant gains. ISW assesses that the attacks build on months of shaping meant to wear down Russia's offensive capacity.

Before Vivaldi, Ukrainian forces targeted Russian drone operators, gaining drone superiority before the counteroffensive. They used the same approach ahead of their Oleksandrivka counterattacks in early 2026.

Moscow appears to see the pattern. A Ukrainian military official said on 7 October that Russia is moving drone units and Spetsnaz from quieter sectors to the Sloviansk–Kramatorsk direction. Ukraine also reorganized its command in and around Donetsk Oblast in early September, which may be blunting Russian attacks from the east, ISW said.

"Distant" and "doomed"

One Russian milblogger called an advance toward the Sloviansk–Kramatorsk area a "distant" prospect, ISW reported. A Russian offensive from Siversk toward Sloviansk may be "doomed" to failure or heavy losses unless Russia retakes the forests south of Lyman, he said.

The counterattacks east of the two cities appear to support Vivaldi, ISW assessed. Together with Russia's defeat north of the river, they could disrupt Russia's offensive toward Sloviansk from the east entirely.

If Ukraine holds Kryva Luka and keeps Russia off the Mykolaivka heights, Moscow's pincer on Sloviansk and Kramatorsk loses the ground it was built on.

The Hittite generals posted in western Anatolia (the Asian part of modern Turkey) did not mince words. They told their king that the territory was surrounded by enemies. They asked for soldiers, horses and war chariots, and warned that without help the army could be destroyed. They also made it clear that they would not […]

A Ukrainian Sargan-3000 sea drone shot down a Russian Shahed flying on a mesh radio network, Ukraine's Navy reported on 7 October. Ukrainian sea drones have downed Russian aircraft before, but with missiles. This one used a machine gun.

Russia has been hitting Odesa with air attacks that come in waves with short gaps between them. Guarding the sky over water is harder than over land. Since fall 2025, Russia has also used mesh radio networks to reroute Shaheds mid-flight and dodge Ukrainian air defenses. That leaves Ukraine needing more ways to meet these drones out at sea, before they reach its ports and coast.

A Shahed steered by radio

A mesh-network drone passes its control signals along a chain of radio relays, drone to drone and on to ground antennas. That lets a Russian operator steer it in flight.

In May, Serhii "Flash" Beskrestnov, then a Defense Ministry adviser, said only about 5% of Shaheds had got through in a recent Russian strike, and predicted that Russia would answer with jet-powered versions and strikes near the border. By July, Ukraine was testing jamming against mesh-controlled jet Shaheds, he said.

The Sargan-3000 fired its Protector remote weapon station, Militarnyi reported. The station is a remotely operated 12.7-mm (50-caliber) machine gun with electro-optical sights. The outlet added that the Sargan-3000 is designed for combat missions far from Ukraine's coast.

Built for the open sea

Ukraine's Navy took the Sargan-3000 into service in April 2026, according to Militarnyi. The drone boat has a combat radius of up to 1,600 km. It moves at 40–55 knots and carries up to 450 kg of payload.

In September, a Sargan-3000 sank a Russian uncrewed boat with machine-gun fire. Militarnyi called it the first battle between uncrewed sea platforms in history. Analyst H.I. Sutton wrote that the boat carried a Protector made by Norway's Kongsberg. That is the same weapon station named in the October shootdown. Sutton added that Russian attack sea drones work closely with Shaheds, which can relay the boats' mesh radio signals.

In the cover image: Asmodeus / The Devil at Rennes-le-Château, by Andy Hay, and his worshipper on the US city council

by Fabio Giuseppe Carlo Carisio

VERSIONE IN ITALIANO

Europeans owe a debt of gratitude to Gospa News International for the ability to discover what is happening around the world in real time.

Not because we are better than others, but because we pay attention to RT (formerly Russia Today)—a broadcaster offering exceptional investigative content that, prior to the war in Ukraine (triggered by the 2014 NATO coup—a fact that must always be remembered), maintained newsrooms across Europe.

Yet, despite producing highly verified and well-documented content with an approach that was as objective as possible (unlike Sputnik International, which is controlled by the Kremlin), RT was banned from the web in EU by the European Commission under the criminal President Ursula von der Leyen and in the United Kingdom under the heretical Freemason King Charles.

If you Europeans are able to read about a sensational event almost in real time today, you have Gospa News to thank—and perhaps you might consider making a small donation.

HELP GOSPA NEWS WITH A FREE DONATION via PayPal or Bank

Invocation to Satan Confirms the Era of the Antichrist (VIDEO with subtitles)

“US city council opens session with prayer to Satan”—this is the simple headline of an article posted last night by RT at 12:37 AM Moscow time in its “Top Stories” section, referencing a video published on the official website of the city of Ottumwa (Iowa, USA).

The RT article you are about to read highlights a massive problem—one previously addressed in another Gospa News investigation that proved highly embarrassing for the Catholic Church…

It states that the invocation of Lucifer was permitted under a new law recently passed by the City Council, which allows any faith group to offer a “prayer.”

One member of the assembly had warned of the risk that satanic invocations might occur and voted against the measure.

The Our Lady’s Prophecies on Antichrist and Satan

I do not wish to appear boastful, but it is an objective fact that, just hours earlier of the RT post, Gospa News had published an exclusive investigation with a telling title: “THE APOCALYPTIC PROPHECIES OF LA SALETTE – 1. The Era of the ANTICHRIST. From Our Lady of Victory at Lepanto to the October 7th of Jihadist, Zionist & Masonic DEMONS.”

For this, I give thanks to the Holy Spirit, the Paraclete; as a Christian journalist, I pray to Him daily for inspiration, including in the choice of topics for my writings.

Investigation under translating but you can read in English with Machine Translation clicking on the flags up left

PROFEZIE APOCALITTICHE di LA SALETTE – 1. L’Era dell’ANTICRISTO. Dalla MADONNA della Vittoria di Lepanto al 7 Ottobre dei DEMONI Jihadisti, Sionisti & Massoni

 

In the message that the visionary of La Salette (France) nun Mary od Cross reported receiving during the apparition of Our Lady (September 19, 1846—approved by the Catholic Church), the imminent Era of the Antichrist was foretold.

In a message given in 2001 to the visionary Marija Pavlović, the Queen of Peace—who has been appearing in Medjugorje for 45 years—announced that “Satan is now free from his chains.”

The effects are visible not only in the rise of atheism but even in the open adulation of Lucifer!

45th Medjugorje Anniversary – MISTERY in VATICAN! Late Cardinal Ruini Certified the Holy Lady’s Apparitions as Authentic (Video). Then “Masonic Clergy” Hid this

A Pitfall Already Embedded in a Controversial Vatican Document

As Gospa News has noted, respect for other deities was enshrined in an even more significant act—one that the Holy See and certain cardinals stubbornly continue to defend: the Second Vatican Council’s document *Nostra Aetate*.

That document called for respect for every religious faith—and thus, implicitly, for the Goddess Kali (worshipped by the ferocious Thuggee headhunters), the Great Architect of the Universe (of Freemasonry), and the pagan idol Baphomet; and, by extension, for Satan—who is surely more real than the other three mentioned, all of whom were inspired by him…

APOLOGIA DEL GENOCIDIO. Mentre i Sionisti sterminano i Bimbi il Cardinale Fernandez e il Vaticano celebrano Nostra Aetate e il Dialogo anche coi Demoni

Naturally, the Catholic Church approved that document to foster interfaith dialogue and, above all, to offer a gift to the Zionist movement—comprising self-styled adherents of Judaism—thereby triggering what we have termed a “license to kill,” which has materialized in the current genocides in the Holy Land.

For too many cardinals—whether out of naivety, as they follow the progressive theological drift that denies Lucifer’s existence, or out of fear, preferring not to speak of him—failed to heed Pope Paul VI’s warning to the clergy about the entry of the “smoke of Satan into the Temple of God.”

Instead, they approved that document, never imagining that one day they might find themselves confronting Satan worshippers.

That day has arrived!

HALLOWEEN: The Baleful “PROPHECY” of the ITALIAN EXORCIST on “the Devil’s Rights” and Biblical Warning. Lest we forget a Massacre in the SATAN’S NIGHT (video)

Yet the weapons wielded by the wearers of the cardinal’s red and the bishop’s violet seem to have lost their edge, precisely because of the gradual decline in the struggle against the devil and in the practice of exorcism.

This excludes, of course, those members of the clergy who have already crossed the flimsy barricade to serve the enemy—as prophesied in the Marian messages received by Sister Mary of the Cross (born Melanie Calvat), the visionary of La Salette.

FREEMASONRY & VATICAN – 2. Cardinals, Bishops kneeling before Satan at the Masonic Summit in Italy

US City Council opens with ‘Hail Satan’ Prayer (VIDEO)

Originally published by RT (former Russia Today) – banned in EU and UK

An Iowa city council meeting erupted into controversy after opening with a Satanic invocation that ended with the words “Hail Satan,” prompting a local pastor to demand that officials “reverse this curse.”

Matt Dalbey, an Ottumwa resident and former city council member, delivered the invocation at Tuesday’s meeting (October, 6, 2026) under a policy allowing residents of different religions and belief systems to open council proceedings with a prayer or reflection.

Dalbey began by addressing a “dark father” and invoking what he called the “Luciferian impulse” before concluding: “It is done. Hail Satan.”

The invocation immediately drew objections from New Life Center pastor

The invocation immediately drew objections from New Life Center pastor Rick Bick, who interrupted the proceedings.

“That was a curse put on the city,” he said. “Most of you know that, and we need to just stop and reverse it… ‘Hail Satan’ is not welcome here.”

“PRIESTS vs GENOCIDE, DOMINANT ZIONISM and ARMED BANKS“. Eroic Homily by Italian Archbishop in the Feast of Saint Pio vs WARLORDS of Death

Mayor Benjamin Foote then called for a 30-second moment of silence “to reflect on whatever it is we need to reflect on at this time.”

Invocation was permitted under a new policy adopted by the council 

Dalbey’s invocation was permitted under a policy adopted by the council in January.

The measure states that Ottumwa, a city of some 25,500 people, seeks to respect “the diversity of both organized and unorganized religious denominations, as well as other faiths, belief systems, or the lack thereof.”

FREEMASONRY & ZIONISM – 4. How SYNAGOGUE OF SATAN was LICENSED to KILL! It arose from Conspiracy behind the Heretical Catholic text “Nostra Aetate”

Council member Cara Galloway had specifically warned that a Satanic invocation could happen when she cast the only vote against the policy in January.

Opening with an invocation means allowing viewpoints that may not reflect our own,” she said, warning that selectively objecting to one now could expose taxpayers to legal liability

The city said Wednesday that it had been flooded with calls over the prayer

The city said Wednesday that it had been flooded with calls over the prayer, many of them “rude and full of profanities,” but stressed that officials cannot discriminate between denominations or belief systems.

The recording of the meeting had drawn more than 12,000 views on the city’s YouTube channel by Wednesday afternoon, making it the most-watched video ever posted there.

“The Exploitation of CHILDREN by SATANIC ELITES”. Ex CIA Officer R.D. Steele Deposition before International Tribunal (7 best Week Videos)

Dalbey is scheduled to deliver another invocation at the council’s November 3 meeting. He told the Ottumwa Courier that the prayer is used by the Satanic Temple of Iowa, of which he is a member, but “has nothing to do with the belief in a satanic deity.”

The organization describes itself as non-theistic.

Originally published by RT (former Russia Today) – banned in EU and UK

---

RELATED POSTS by GOSPA NEWS

DEVIL’s WORSHIPPERS & EPSTEIN’s Zionist CHURCH of SATAN (videos). Warning on US Gangs of Raping as the Ring of MOSSAD’s Pedophile

CRISTIANI INERMI CONTRO SATANA. Perché la Chiesa “anti-soprannaturale” ha Paura di “Scacciare i Demoni” e Pregare San Michele

EUCHARIST AND PENTECOST: Supernatural Gifts of the LAST SUPPER and EASTER. The Revelations of the Gospels of the Apostles John and Matthew

CHRISTIAN ZIONISM: A Fake Religion as Zionism of Talmud and Star of David without Biblical Roots. Orthodox Priest, American Pastors Explain (VIDEO)

EUROPEAN Leaders’ SECRET CHAT “WASHINGTON GROUP” under SCRUTINY. Von der Leyen faces Fresh Inquiry by EU Ombudswoman

Exclusive! NATO CHIEF: A SOROS’ FRIEND WHO FUNDED KIEV COUP. Ex Dutch PM Rutte Supported LGBTQ against Pedophilia Ban in EU

POPE HONOURS BRITISH MASON ADULTERER KING CHARLES III. The Financiers of the Historic Attack on the Papal State and the War in Ukraine

---

RELATED POSTS by RT

READ MORE: Demand for exorcisms skyrocketing – US priest

READ MORE: Epstein case reveals ‘satanism’ of Western elites – Lavrov

---

 

For more than three centuries, astronomers asking whether the Solar System is stable have received ever more comforting answers. Isaac Newton was not so sure. He suspected that the mutual tugs between Jupiter and Saturn would eventually wreck the planetary order, and that only divine intervention could prevent it. By the late 1700s, Laplace and […]

Em junho de 2025, a CPI das Bets terminou em pizza – como se diz quando uma investigação acaba sem punir ninguém. Mas agora, mais de um ano depois, as empresas que passaram impunes pela comissão estão de volta, desta vez como alvos de uma ação civil pública na Justiça.

No dia 28 de setembro, a Advocacia-Geral da União (AGU) entrou na Justiça Federal em Pernambuco contra 17 empresas ligadas a 20 marcas de apostas online, pedindo ressarcimento de gastos pela União. A Agência Pública cruzou essa lista com a documentação reunida pelos senadores da CPI e descobriu que ao menos 14 delas estavam nos documentos da comissão como remetentes ou beneficiárias de transferências financeiras. Dessas, 12 foram citadas no relatório final. Esse documento, da então senadora Soraya Thronicke (Podemos-MS) – que não foi reeleita neste ano -, foi rejeitado por 4 votos a 3.

Na ação da AGU, o órgão pede que as empresas de apostas ressarcem o Sistema Único de Saúde (SUS) pelo tratamento de apostadores adoecidos, custo que o Ministério da Saúde (MS) estima em, no mínimo, R$ 2,6 bilhões. Pede também R$ 1 bilhão por danos morais coletivos e a devolução em dobro do que as pessoas diagnosticadas com ludopatia apostaram.

Aparecer nos papéis da CPI não indica, por si só, irregularidade. Nem todas as empresas aparecem como suspeitas. A Superbet, por exemplo, surge como titular legítima de uma autorização que outra plataforma teria usado indevidamente. Duas, a OIG e a Ventmear (Sportingbet), estão ligadas a pedidos de indiciamento, todos contra pessoas, não contra as empresas. Seis delas, OIG, Esportes Gaming, NSX, Ventmear, BPX e Foggo (Blaze), somam cerca de 31% do mercado, segundo as contas da própria AGU, e ocupam lugar de destaque nas 541 páginas deixadas por Thronicke.

Muitas siglas: Bets, CPI, MP de Lula e Fux no STF

A ação da AGU veio três dias depois da Medida Provisória 1.394, assinada pelo presidente Lula, que proíbe as apostas de quota fixa, tira as plataformas do ar até 6 de outubro e extingue as autorizações em 30 dias, sem devolver o que as empresas pagaram pelas outorgas. Se o Congresso não aprovar a MP em até 120 dias de tramitação, prazo suspenso durante o recesso parlamentar, ela perde a validade. A CPI já havia ido nessa direção: entre as vinte medidas do relatório derrubado estava a proibição de cassinos on-line, como o Tigrinho.

A Associação Nacional de Jogos e Loterias (ANJL) e o Instituto Brasileiro de Jogo Responsável (IBJR) já apresentaram pedido a Luiz Fux, do Supremo Tribunal Federal (STF), para suspensão dos efeitos da medida provisória.

Nesta segunda-feira, 5 de outubro, a AGU pediu que o STF rejeite a suspensão da Medida Provisória. Na manifestação, assinada pelo advogado-geral Jorge Messias, a AGU sustenta que o marco legal das bets, formado pelas leis 13.756/2018 e 14.790/2023, era “extensamente falho” e falhava em autorização, fiscalização, publicidade e prevenção à lavagem de dinheiro. Para concluir, a peça diz que “o ‘dragão’ era indomável”. O órgão cita dados oficiais segundo os quais os registros no SUS ligados ao jogo patológico cresceram 140% entre 2018 e 2025, e as apostas retiraram R$ 62,5 bilhões dos orçamentos familiares só em 2025. A AGU também pediu que o procurador-geral da República seja ouvido em 72 horas e sugeriu uma nova audiência pública sobre o tema, atualizando a realizada em novembro de 2024.

Como a CPI terminou em pizza

Em 26 de novembro de 2024, Fernando Oliveira Lima, o Fernandim OIG, sentou-se diante dos senadores da CPI das Bets amparado por um habeas corpus. Tinha 33 anos, disse ter estudado até o primeiro ano do ensino médio e se apresentou como empresário de tecnologia, criador de jogos para o Facebook que teriam alcançado 250 milhões de usuários durante a pandemia. Os senadores exibiram dois vídeos e perguntaram se ele conhecia os sites 7Games, R7Games e Betão. Ele conhecia e disse que pertenciam à OIG Gaming Brazil, da qual é sócio. Perguntaram se era dono do “jogo do tigrinho”, mas ele negou. Respondeu que a OIG pagava para oferecê-lo. O empresário contou ainda que, naquela mesma semana, a empresa havia sido uma das primeiras a obter a aprovação completa do Ministério da Fazenda para operar.

Fernando não era o único convocado do dia. A pauta listava também João Studart, dono da Betnacional, e Marcus Vinicius Freire de Lima e Silva, apresentado no requerimento como “diretor do Grupo Entain e proprietário do Sportingbet”. Studart faltou e só depôs uma semana depois. Marcus Vinicius não apareceu: na véspera, seus advogados alegaram que ele não fora intimado e que morava no exterior. As três empresas ligadas a eles, a OIG, a NSX (dona da Betnacional) e a Ventmear (operadora do Sportingbet), estão hoje entre as rés da AGU.

Seis meses depois, o relatório final propôs indiciar Fernando, um primo dele e o administrador da OIG, por lavagem de dinheiro e por associação criminosa. Marcus Vinicius e as influenciadoras Virginia Fonseca e Deolane Bezerra estavam entre os alvos de 16 pedidos de indiciamento, mas nenhum deles vingou com a derrubada do texto.

No especial Jogo Perigoso: o Brasil das Bets, a Pública contou os bastidores dessa votação. Votaram contra o relatório de Thronicke os senadores Ângelo Coronel (Republicanos-BA), Efraim Filho (PL-PB), Eduardo Gomes (PL-TO) e Professora Dorinha Seabra (União-GO). Eduardo Girão (Novo-CE), que votou a favor ao lado de Alessandro Vieira (MDB-SE), atribuiu o resultado a uma manobra do Centrão, com senadores que não acompanharam os depoimentos e só apareceram para votar. Thronicke contou à reportagem que passou a andar com seguranças do Senado após receber “recados” e ameaças veladas. Mesmo com a rejeição, ela levou o material às autoridades e diz ter apresentado, desde então, projetos de lei para endurecer o controle sobre as apostas.

Entre os documentos da CPI estava a carta de Vania Borges, que perdeu o filho para as bets, como revelou a Pública.

A apuração também mostra quem atuou na comissão a favor do setor. Ciro Nogueira (PP-PI) foi apontado por colegas como “advogado” de Fernandim OIG, que havia comprado três apartamentos de uma incorporadora da família do senador. Ângelo Coronel justificou o voto pela “falta de tempo” para analisar as 541 páginas do relatório e declarou abertamente ser favorável aos jogos como fonte de receita. O presidente da CPI, Dr. Hiran (PP-RR), foi criticado por não pautar todos os depoimentos aprovados. Os bastidores incluem ainda uma investigação da Polícia Federal sobre um lobista que teria cobrado R$ 50 milhões de empresários do setor para evitar convocações e indiciamentos, acusação sem comprovação oficial. Selfies de senadores com Virginia Fonseca durante o depoimento dela ajudaram a minar a credibilidade da comissão, cujo desfecho um integrante descreveu como “melancólico”.

Ação da AGU se apoia em números do setor

Na Justiça, a AGU seguiu outro caminho. As empresas foram escolhidas por um único critério, o tamanho. A AGU usou as vinte marcas de um levantamento da consultoria Blask, que juntas concentrariam cerca de 80% da receita do setor, e chegou às empresas que as operam, num mercado em que a Fazenda tinha 85 autorizadas em agosto deste ano. A Betano, sozinha, responderia por 21% do mercado. A OIG, com 7Games e Betão, pouco mais de 5%. Para justificar o foro em Pernambuco, a AGU invoca o Código de Defesa do Consumidor e a concentração de população vulnerável no Nordeste.

O país tem 28 milhões de apostadores, 10,9 milhões deles com padrão de risco. Os atendimentos no SUS por jogo patológico cresceram cerca de 140% entre 2018 e 2025. Quase 1,3 milhão de pessoas pediram para serem excluídas das plataformas. No primeiro semestre de 2026, o INSS concedeu 260 afastamentos do trabalho por vício em jogo; em todo o ano de 2022, foram 11, segundo dados obtidos pelo UOL e citados na ação. Pela lei, cabe ao Ministério da Saúde 0,12% da arrecadação do setor, cerca de R$ 50 milhões no último exercício.

A tese é que o dano à saúde mental é inerente ao negócio, e não fruto do desvio de uma ou outra empresa. Por isso, a AGU propõe calcular a parcela das doenças atribuível às apostas e distribuir a conta conforme a fatia de mercado de cada ré. A fórmula vem de um julgamento de 1980 na Suprema Corte da Califórnia, contra fabricantes de um remédio para gestantes, e já foi usada pela Justiça do Rio Grande do Sul contra a Souza Cruz. A ação segue o molde da que a AGU move desde 2019 contra a indústria do cigarro.

A própria peça avisa que a participação no mercado “não constitui presunção de ilicitude”. O relatório de Thronicke, aliás, recomendava ao Ministério Público ajuizar ações civis públicas para indenizar consumidores lesados e já registrava a pressão sobre a rede de atenção psicossocial do SUS, cujos atendimentos por jogo patológico tinham passado de 841, em 2022, para 1.290 no ano seguinte.

A peça da AGU também traz estimativa do Ministério da Fazenda de que, somente em 2025, as apostas tenham retirado cerca de R$ 62,5 bilhões dos orçamentos das famílias brasileiras.

Na sexta-feira, dia 25 de setembro, às vésperas do primeiro turno das eleições, o presidente Lula assinou a Medida Provisória (MP) 1394, que proíbe a atuação das bets no país. A MP é uma vitória, ainda que venha tarde.

É apenas o começo de uma batalha jurídica e regulatória que irá se desenrolar no próximo mandato eleitoral, com papel central tanto do presidente eleito quanto dos demais parlamentares. Afinal, deputados e senadores compõem as comissões mistas que analisam as medidas provisórias, e, para virar lei, uma MP também precisa ser aprovada pela Câmara e pelo Senado. 

Aqui, quero enaltecer o papel fundamental que a cobertura jornalística da Agência Pública teve nessa decisão, e que minha colega Natália Viana detalha em sua coluna da semana passada.  

Que o vício em apostas – a ludopatia – tem um impacto grande na saúde da população, já está estabelecido, tanto em termos psicológicos quanto financeiros. Não são poucos os casos de pessoas que perdem bens materiais, se endividam e quebram relações familiares por causa das apostas.

O marido de uma amiga não tem celular desde o ano passado: foi a condição para que seguissem o relacionamento, depois de ele perder tudo o que tinham guardado e até vender o carro para seguir jogando. 

Rafael Borges Amaral, de 26 anos, perdeu a vida na batalha contra a ludopatia. A carta escrita por sua mãe, Vânia de Souza Borges, não foi ouvida pela CPI das Bets, mas alcançou o Brasil e ajudou a levantar a bandeira de muitas outras famílias pela proibição das apostas online.

A saúde das pessoas é muito mais importante do que qualquer impacto econômico. Antes de pensar no PIB ou na arrecadação tributária, é a vida que precisa ser colocada em primeiro plano. 

Então, mesmo se proibir as bets fosse ruim para a economia, seria a decisão acertada.

Mas este não é o caso. Para a economia do país, acabar com esses jogos é bastante benéfico.

Isso porque a renda que é absorvida pelas bets não retorna em mesmo volume para a economia do país. Ela é tirada de circulação, em grande parte apropriada pelas casas de aposta, muitas das quais nem no Brasil estão.

Então, além da renda que sai do bolso das famílias e prejudica suas contas diárias, a economia do país como um todo é afetada. 

Isso porque, quando alguém vai ao mercado e gasta dinheiro comprando um produto ou contratando um serviço, esse valor retorna em maior escala para a economia. É o que chamamos de efeito multiplicador. 

Por exemplo, se eu compro R$ 100 no mercadinho, estes R$ 100 viram a renda do comerciante. Ele, por sua vez, vai gastá-la, o que gera renda para outra pessoa, que também vai gastar, e assim por diante. No final, R$100 viram muito mais em atividade econômica. A roda da economia gira.  

Mas, se eu perco estes mesmos R$ 100 num cassino online, este dinheiro não comprou nada, não gerou demanda nenhuma. E a maior parte dele não vai retornar em prêmios, vai ser retida na casa de apostas.

Um estudo conduzido pelo professor Guilherme Klein para o Centro de Estudos de Macroeconomia das Desigualdades da Universidade de São Paulo (Made/USP) dimensionou o impacto das bets nesse movimento. 

A conta é a seguinte. O Centro Celso Furtado estimou que, em 2025, houve uma transferência bruta de R$ 62,5 bilhões para as plataformas de apostas. Ou seja, somando tudo o que foi apostado e redistribuído em prêmios, as bets ficaram com mais de 60 bilhões para si. 

Com esse número, o professor estimou alguns cenários diferentes, com hipóteses mais ou menos otimistas sobre o papel econômico do setor de apostas, e chegou numa perda total para a economia brasileira de algo entre R$ 90,9 bi e R$ 141 bilhões de reais – ou de 0,7 a 1,1% do PIB do nosso país.

De um terço a metade do crescimento da economia brasileira em 2025. Até cinco vezes mais do que o impacto estimado para o tarifaço americano. 

A própria Confederação Nacional do Comércio de Bens, Serviços e Turismo (CNC) estimou que o varejo sozinho deixou de faturar cerca de R$ 103 bilhões em 2024, devido ao direcionamento de recursos das pessoas para as bets.

Mesmo quando consideramos o ganho de arrecadação que a regulamentação das apostas trouxe, regular sai mais caro para o país do que proibir. No Estudo do Made, o efeito final é de uma redução entre R$ 14,6 bilhões e R$ 35,6 bilhões na arrecadação de impostos.

Isso sem nem considerar a elevação dos gastos em saúde pública para tratamento do vício em apostas. Conforme o Instituto de Estudos para Políticas de Saúde (IEPS), as bets geram um custo anual para o SUS de R$ 30,6 bilhões. 

No fim, a soma do jogo é clara. Com a proibição, ganham as pessoas, sua saúde mental e financeira, e a economia do país. Só perdem, mesmo, as casas de apostas – e os influenciadores que elas remuneram.