First, Franciscio Leiva spoke about the situation of online gambling in Chile. "It is a backward and inorganic situation, since the regulation says that the online casino is prohibited, unless they are authorized by particular laws, and it does not take care of the technological changes that the industry has had," said Leiva.

"Online gambling is a reality, therefore, it is better to have clear and permanent rules to prevent money laundering, underage gambling, etc. Except for Colombia, the rest of Latin America is behind with respect to online gambling" added.

Then he commented that in the last time there have been some news on the matter. "In the last year, the undersecretary of the Treasury announced that remote gambling is being regulated to advance in this matter. Law 21210 already incorporated" digital taxes "but they are not specifically designed for online gambling."

He also said that the objective of the regulation is to seek protection and guarantees for players; in addition, the business model must be competitive in terms of quality and price, with a corresponding tax.

Then he detailed the contents that a gambling regulation must have: Existence of a regulatory authority, definition of the tax regime, allowed games, accepted payment methods, location of the game server, responsible gambling, prevention of money laundering.

In Chile there are no official numbers, but in Spain, the online gambling market represents 85% of the physical game. (in 2018), Leiva said. "Chile is an important market with high growth rates, which Chile must regulate and promote. It is an opportunity that Chile must take advantage of."

Constante Traverso commented on the face-to-face gambling market situation and the possibilities of online gambling in Peru, where 750 gambling halls are still closed in the face of the pandemic. There was a total closure, then 4 phases, and some activities are given priority over another. Traverso believes that the opening priority was based on subjective and arbitrary criteria.

"We are used to following protocols," he says. "In the world, tourism activity is the most affected by the pandemic. The casino is within that sector."

"In Peru no legalization is necessary, since online games are legalized but do not have a specific regulation. Now we find ourselves with the unpleasant surprise that all this highly regulated activity is closed and with 80 thousand people unable to work, and the activity that is not regulated, such as online games, if they are authorized to operate. It is a very dramatic situation. Of the 750 face-to-face gambling halls only 500 remain open. Many had to close. Through APEJA we have tried to present arguments to That this situation be corrected, so that this is fixed, but until today we had no results. We do not lose hope, "he added.

"One of the problems with the law has been that they have not taken into account the differences between online gambling, traditional gambling, sports betting, etc. All controls have been developed for traditional casino gambling, but transpounding that regime other activities will not necessarily work. You have to take into account the differences when legislating, "he said.

"I think that all this shows an absence of political decision on gambling by the Peruvian state. I am convinced that gambling is an engine of economic development. This can be seen in the figures, and we simply lack political decision ", he concluded.

When asked about the issue of the pandemic in relation to the legislation, Leiva said:

"On that side I see the pandemic as an opportunity to regulate certain activities that were promoted during this time, such as online gambling, online commerce, etc. As for the elections, there are elections in 2022. I propose to businessmen to present proposals and take advantage of that time to prepare adequate legislation for that moment. "

For his part, Traverso said: "The pandemic has triggered the use of online media and it could be an opportunity to regulate, but I am pessimistic about it. We are close to a presidential election, with a congress with less than 1 year in office and I am afraid that in this situation the activity is regulated, due to the tax issue, where we could end up with a clearly confiscatory and unconstitutional tax."