Per Widerström, chief executive of evoke plc, has been named in a private criminal complaint filed with the Vienna Public Prosecutor's Office last Thursday
Per Widerström, chief executive of evoke plc, has been named in a private criminal complaint filed with the Vienna Public Prosecutor’s Office last Thursday (13 November). The complaint, brought by an Austrian physician, seeks to recover historic gambling losses.
Widerström, the business’ former international managing director, and several evoke-owned companies were named in the document. A statement of facts included with the filing alleges that the group had been illegally organising gambling, thereby breaching Austrian law, and calls on prosecutors to investigate the matter. If the authorities proceed, this would mark a significant escalation in the ongoing legal battles across Europe’s grey markets.
The physician who filed the complaint previously won a civil court judgement awarding them €564,695 several years ago. With accumulated interest, the total sum owed is now argued to be over €700,000.
While some operators opt to comply with local court rulings in European grey markets, evoke-which owns William Hill, 888, and Mr Green-has chosen to oppose the rulings. The company consistently argues its gambling activities are protected under European free movement of services rules.
When the individual’s attorneys attempted to enforce the original judgement in Malta, evoke successfully used Bill 55 to defend itself. This legislation protects MGA-licensed B2C operators from liability resulting from their licensed activities. In a parallel move, the physician has filed bankruptcy proceedings with the Malta courts against evoke, with the case due in early 2026.
Documents obtained by NEXT.io have revealed a crucial admission regarding the operator’s compliance strategy. A cross-examination document showed evoke’s former international managing director admitted the business knew they were operating in breach of Austria’s monopoly system.
The executive claimed that their MGA licence provided them with a legal shield and added that the decision not to pay players after local court judgements was made by evoke’s executive committee.
The company appears well resourced for the escalating confrontation. According to its 2024 annual report, evoke has put aside £116m for “ongoing legal and regulatory matters principally in Austria and Germany.”
The news comes as the legal environment for cross-border online gambling faces intense scrutiny. The outcome of the Austrian criminal complaint, should it proceed, is set to define the legality of the continent’s online gaming grey market.
Meanwhile, Malta’s defensive legislation, Bill 55, is itself under pressure, having become the subject of several European-level legal cases that could see it watered down or struck entirely. The filing of a criminal complaint against a major listed company’s CEO is an unprecedented step that signals prosecutors are prepared to treat defiance of local gambling laws as a matter of personal criminal liability, not just a corporate civil matter.
The private criminal complaint against Evoke CEO Per Widerström marks a significant shift in the battle over historic gambling losses. For years, the conflict was waged in civil courts, with operators able to manage the financial risk via provisions like the £116m set aside by evoke.
The core challenge has always been the EU free movement of services defence versus national monopolies. However, the revelation that evoke’s former executive admitted the business knew it was breaching the monopoly is highly damaging. It strips away the legal fig leaf and converts the dispute from a debate over EU law interpretation into a potential case of deliberate illegal activity under Austrian criminal law.
The claimant’s parallel bankruptcy proceedings in Malta show lawyers are aggressively trying to bypass Malta’s Bill 55. If Austrian authorities choose to pursue the criminal investigation, it would force other major MGA-licensed grey market operators to re-evaluate their entire European strategy, potentially forcing them into immediate exits or compliance with historic claims to protect their executives from individual liability. This case could truly mark the end of the legal argument for operating in non-regulated EU jurisdictions.
