from the damn-the-facts,-full-speed-ahead! dept

As we move closer to mid-term elections, the Trump administration continues to lie about election integrity, sowing the seeds for bullshit “rigged election” claims should the GOP fail to win the elections Trump wants them to win.

There’s another reason this administration lies constantly about elections, voters, and anything related to it: Trump still thinks he won the 2020 election and won’t take facts for an answer. That’s why there have been so many efforts to re-litigate the 2020 election results by Trump and his party members. And this is something that continues despite this supposedly rigged system somehow managing to deliver an election win for Trump in 2024.

It doesn’t matter whether or not anyone believes Trump or his enablers. All that matters is that Trump believes it. And if he does then a whole lot of his voting base will be willing to do anything from raid the Capitol building in DC to ask ICE to engage in voter suppression this November.

Trump is leveraging the bigotry he’s stoked with his anti-migrant efforts and the billions his budget bill has added to the DHS’s bottom line to make the case (without any facts in evidence) that there are hundreds of thousands of non-citizens voting in every election.

So far, the administration has yet to demonstrate that the number of non-citizen voters is enough to be concerned about at all, much less evidence of a deliberately broken system the libs are using to keep the GOP out of office.

When facts aren’t conducive to the preferred narrative, the narrative takes the lead. That’s how things started in Nevada, when the DHS claimed thousands of illegal voters recently participated in elections. Here’s the current DHS boss making outlandish claims on X, which is where this government does most of its social media business:

Of that 250,000 total, Mullin and the DHS claimed more than 190,000 were detected in California. Nevada’s total came in as nearly 16,000 illegal voters, according to the DHS. Things have drastically changed in the last month, as NPR reports, based on public records it has obtained, including a recent video conference involving both DHS and Nevada state officials.

DHS initially announced it had found close to 16,000 noncitizens on Nevada’s voter list. But a DHS official acknowledged in the meeting with Nevada officials that number was “the ceiling” and each voter still had to be manually reviewed. Then, a day later, DHS provided the state with a list of 185 ID numbers pertaining to voters the agency said it was confident were noncitizens. 

Holy shit. That’s a false positive rate that puts Flock to shame. That means the DHS is about 99% wrong when it comes to “illegal” voters.

But even after admitting it could possibly only pinpoint 185 of the alleged 16,000 non-citizen voters, the DHS continues to pretend it will somehow get a lot closer to 16k than it is to zero at this point.

Nevada asked for more information on that smaller group of 185 voters, and the data points used to match them to noncitizens. DHS declined to provide that. The agency did say it still had more than 14,000 Nevada voters that “need additional review,” and it also provided the state with a list of more than 6,000 voter IDs the agency said were “higher confidence” matches but had yet to be reviewed.

Read that through carefully. Not only is the DHS continuing to pretend it still needs to re-review 14,000 voters and claiming it may have located another 6,000 voters of dubious citizenship, it won’t even provide Nevada with information pertaining to the 185 voters it insists have actually voted illegally.

And there’s a good chance the DHS will never turn over any information to any of the states it has accused of permitting thousands (or hundreds of thousands) of non-citizens to vote. Doing so would mean undoing Trump’s narrative, so the DHS will maintain the upper hand by regularly “citing” its made-up number (250,000+ “illegal” voters) while stiff-arming, sand-bagging, and stonewalling any requests for data that might support these obvious lies.

What makes this even stupider, more corrupt, and more dangerous is that even if the DHS is right (it fucking isn’t) that there are 16,000 non-citizens casting votes in Nevada (and — in addition — only casting votes for Democrats), it still wouldn’t make up the difference in Trump’s 2020 presidential election loss in that state. He lost that state by more than 35,000 votes in 2020, which means he still would have lost, even if every non-citizen had voted for Joe Biden.

What makes it even stupider is that Nevada flipped in 2024, giving Trump a win by 46,000 votes. Even if we assume — using the same bad faith arguments as Trump uses — that every “illegal” vote was cast against Trump, he still would have won by 30,000 votes.

This bitter husk of man still wants the entire nation to join him in his psychosis and firmly believe, with their entire American hearts, that the 2020 election was rigged, but the two elections he won were fair and square.

What follows from here will just be voter suppression in whatever form this administration thinks it can get away with. By pretending nearly 250,000 illegal voters are on the nation’s rolls, Trump can start prepping ICE deployments to “blue” states — something that’s going to be a lot easier to do since they’ve already been flooded with federal officers and National Guard units.

Filed Under: dhs, disinformation, liars, nevada, rigging elections, trump administration, uscis, voter suppression

In this week’s Sunday Reboot, the Apple Event rolled on as expected, but while it was his first big show as CEO, John Ternus had a muted introduction.

Sunday Reboot is a weekly column covering some of the lighter stories within the Apple reality distortion field from the past seven days. All to get next week underway with a good first step.

Apple Event is Apple Event

Being in a role for a long period of time means you get to see patterns. For someone working the Apple beat, they’ll experience that all the time.

In my case, the pattern wasn’t just that there would be an event in September to introduce new iPhones. That’s so ingrained into society that even newborn babies know that now.

I’m talking about the flow of the event itself. The format of the presentation, what happens on which beat, and so on.

The usual schedule for an event is:

1. Entertaining introduction before CEO appears.
2. CEO welcomes the viewers and passes initial comments before hinting at the first thing to launch.
3. Flashy camera sequence passing to another executive to handle the actual product launch.
4. Another sequence to pass to an underling about a specific feature of a product then back to the previous executive. Repeat as necessary.
5. Executive either repeats with a second product from the same family or wraps up launch details, potentially leaving some for CEO to utter. Hands back to CEO.
6. Repeat from 3 for X number of products.
7. Depending on the rumors, a 1-in-3 chance of a final major product launch, possibly framed as “One more thing,” complete with transition sequence to managing executive to present. Similar treatment of features before final hand-back to CEO
8. CEO sums up the last item, covers all products, thanks viewers for watching.
9. Presentation ends with another final sequence, Apple logo, and YouTube suggesting you watch one of the Underdogs ads.

A lot has already been written about the products Apple has shown during the event, but it’s worth pointing out that the structure of the overall presentation didn’t change one bit.

Even with a new CEO in the form of John Ternus, there wasn’t any real thing that jumped out as an obvious alteration.

For Apple, this was ideal. It shows that, even with a new pair of hands at the wheel, the company is plodding on as usual.

That said, there is one bit about the event that doesn’t seem to quite fit: the run time.

At 1 hour and 17 minutes, it was a brisk presentation to show off two smartphone models (three if you include the iPhone 18 Pro Max), the AirPods 5, and the new Apple Watch lineup.

That’s not a long time at all, really. And yet Apple managed to pack a lot of stuff in there.

But at the same time, it felt a little empty. The rumors said there were massive smart home changes on the way, and maybe even an OLED iPad mini.

We didn’t get that, but we did get the signs that the company is still stable, via the medium of prepared product launches and flashy editing.

John who?

As the first major event after becoming CEO you would think the presentation would be very heavy-handed about it. Ternus, a relative unknown to the general public, was to have his first prominent appearance as the face of the iPhone maker.

Thankfully, Apple didn’t go down that route. Though to be fair, Ternus didn’t need that anyway.

The only thing Ternus really needed was provided by a brief appearance by the guy he replaced. Tim Cook, famous for “Good morning,” was brought onboard for a few seconds so viewers could be assured it definitely was an Apple Event, before handing over to the next chief.

Old CEO Tim Cook saying to look at the distant and blurry visage of the new CEO, John Ternus – Image Credit: Apple

Quite frankly, this was needed, because my mother knows who Tim Cook is, and that he’s no longer CEO. She has no idea who John Ternus is, and after the event, still isn’t entirely sure.

I’d bet that some members of the public watching it will also wonder who this new face is. Cook’s fame at least helps Ternus make a splash in people’s minds.

I say “make a splash.” It’s more “tried not to rock the boat.”

For being the brand new CEO at a major company, it’s weird that the event doesn’t actually go out of its way to mention the guy’s name.

His introduction talks about spending a lot of his life at Apple, and how it is an “extraordinary privilege” it is to show what the teams at Apple have come up with this year. It’s very much a team effort, with Ternus almost taking the role of a generic host figure.

Sure, it’s good for the company morale if his first words are all about the people working at the company. But while he’s the frontman, he’s practically anonymous to the public.

A check of the transcript reveals that “John” is said four times (and “Johny” once) and “Ternus” isn’t mentioned at all. It’s not brought up in the video notes on YouTube, seen by almost 50 million people by Sunday.

It would’ve cost a few seconds to say something like “Hi, I’m John, the new CEO at Apple,” before going into the “doing it for the teams” talk. Or even Cook uttering “John” once would have done the trick.

After a few events, there will have been time for Ternus to make a bigger impact on the world. He will be a more well-known figure through interviews and other appearances in the coming years.

Eventually, he will get the public fame Tim Cook achieved. At some point, my mother will look at him and actually know his first name and that he’s “that guy who does the iPhones.”

But, for the moment, he will be known by some as “that guy who replaced Tim Cook.” Hopefully that will change sooner rather than later.

Last week’s Sunday Reboot discussed the transition from Cook to Ternus.

Employment in Ireland’s biopharmaceutical sector grew by more than 60pc between 2016 and 2022, according to the course’s operators.

Technological University Dublin will run a new apprenticeship programme designed to address the skills gap in Ireland’s rapidly growing biopharmaceutical sector. 

The ‘Higher Certificate in Science: Bio Process, Chemical Process Technician’ apprenticeship has been developed by BioPharmaChem Ireland in partnership with the School of Chemical and Biopharmaceutical Sciences at TU Dublin. 

This comes amid a period in which Ireland’s biopharma sector is experiencing a major boost, having grown by more than 60pc between 2016 and 2022 and driving demand for specially skilled employees, according to the programme’s operators.    

The apprenticeship is a level-six, two-year programme that will combine academic study and paid workplace learning, with a goal of providing apprentices with the scientific knowledge, technical expertise and practical experience needed for successful careers in biopharma manufacturing. 

Speaking at the course’s launch, Minister for Further and Higher Education, Research, Innovation and Science James Lawless, TD said, “This apprenticeship is about creating opportunities. It gives people a new pathway into a sector that is helping to shape the future of manufacturing and healthcare, while allowing them to earn, learn and build practical experience from day one.

“I’m particularly pleased to see the strong collaboration behind this programme, which has brought together employers, education providers and Government to respond to a real skills need and create new opportunities for learners.”

BioPharmaChem Ireland is the trade association within Ibec that represents the country’s biopharma and chemical sectors. Its membership consists of more than 90 companies from across the ecosystem, including multinationals and Irish indigenous businesses.

Dr Deirdre Lillis, the president of TU Dublin, added, “Ireland’s biopharmaceutical sector is one of the country’s greatest economic success stories, employing around 50,000 people directly, with demand expected to grow by more than 21,000 additional jobs by 2027.

“Ireland’s success has been built on strong collaboration between industry and technological higher education, and meeting future demand requires that partnership to grow even stronger.

“At TU Dublin, we believe the best education is developed with employers, not simply for them. This apprenticeship reflects that commitment, combining academic excellence with workplace learning to equip apprentices with the skills employers need while strengthening Ireland’s position as a global leader in life sciences.”

In August, it was announced that Research Ireland’s Rinn Pharma & Biopharma, Ireland’s national centre for research and innovation in the manufacturing of medicines, would be included in the NordicPharmaTrain network. 

Inclusion in the group means Rinn can enhance NordicPharmaTrain’s network of research institutions and industry collaborators, strengthen cross-border collaboration and accelerate scientific progress within pharma. 

Don’t miss out on the knowledge you need to succeed. Sign up for the Daily Brief, Silicon Republic’s digest of need-to-know sci-tech news.

Barack Obama told a closed Democratic fundraiser last Thursday that artificial intelligence is “moving very fast in private hands, and if we don’t get on top of it, I think it can be dangerous”. 

The New York Times obtained a partial transcript from his office and reported the remarks on Saturday. His advice was addressed to Hakeem Jeffries, the House minority leader, and it assumed an outcome.

“Once you are speaker, I would strongly urge that the Democrats put together a framework for a very public conversation,” Obama said.

Jeffries becomes speaker only if his party takes the House in November.

Beyond that, Obama wants AI written into the party’s platform and made central to the 2028 presidential campaign, with candidates carrying plans that address both safety and the economic disruption. He supplied none of the content. No regulatory mechanism, no position on jobs, no companies named.

These were remarks at a private fundraiser, and they reached the public because Obama’s office released the transcript. A former president making a closed-door warning audible on purpose is doing something other than thinking aloud.

The administration has spent this year moving the other way. It is pushing to preempt state AI regulation with a single national standard, a campaign that has met resistance from states and from Congress alike, and it has asked the G20 not to build institutions to govern AI at all. Any framework of the kind Obama describes would have to be constructed against that.

Something resembling one already exists, and it is not public. The rules used to review frontier models in the US are secret, and the companies that have read them are the large incumbents. A Democratic framework would be arriving in a field where the groundwork has been laid privately.

Pressure is also arriving from inside the industry rather than from either party. OpenAI has asked Congress for rules making national safety requirements mandatory before it adjourns.

More than a thousand people who work at AI companies signed a letter asking the US government for a way to slow the technology down. House Democrats have separately been pressing OpenAI on whether it can shut its own systems off.

Those are the materials a framework would be built from, and they have been available for months. Obama’s contribution is a deadline and a messenger rather than a policy.

All of it starts with Democrats winning the House, and that question is settled on 3 November.

Z.ai, the Chinese model developer listed in Hong Kong as Zhipu, has raised about $5bn in a single move. Roughly $2bn came from placing 21.97 million new shares at HK$714, about 10 percent below the previous close.

The other $3bn came from RMB 20.14bn of convertible bonds maturing in September 2027, and those bonds carry no coupon at all.

Reuters reported the terms from the company’s filing. The bonds were priced to yield between minus 0.5 percent and zero, so buyers are taking a small certain loss on the debt in exchange for the option underneath it. They can convert at HK$892.5, a 25 percent premium to what the placement investors paid.

Lending money at a negative return only makes sense if the equity is what you actually want. On those terms, the bond is less a loan than a ticket, and the size of the book suggests plenty of people wanted one.

The money is earmarked for research, computing resources and infrastructure, expansion, strategic investments, possible acquisitions and working capital, which covers most things a company can legally do. The computing line is the one with a hard constraint behind it.

Z.ai has already built a data centre without Nvidia, running instead on Chinese-made accelerators, and scaling that approach is expensive in a way that buying the market leader is not. The company has not said how much of the $5bn goes to compute, or what it plans to buy with it.

In June, after its stock rose roughly 2,000 percent from a January listing, Zhipu was preparing a placement of several billion dollars. Analysts at the time said the company would stay deeply unprofitable and would need to keep raising for about three years. The first of those years is going well.

Revenue is climbing even though the product is largely free. Z.ai is approaching $1bn in sales while giving its strongest models away, and the stealth model that beat DeepSeek earlier this year was its GLM line. Open weights and a rising share price have so far proved compatible.

Z.ai priced the placement against Friday’s close. Two days before that, the NSA, FBI and CISA had named the company in an advisory on industrial-scale distillation, one of six Chinese firms the agencies accuse of extracting capability from American models.

The advisory alleges Z.AI pulled billions of tokens from GPT-5.5 and Claude Opus by mid-2026. Beijing called the advisory unfounded. Hong Kong investors put $5bn in three days later.

Export controls were written to restrict Chinese access to chips, and capital was never covered. Moonshot is reportedly raising $5bn of its own. Washington writes the rules on hardware, Hong Kong writes the cheques, and nothing in this week’s filing suggests the two are about to meet.

Deals on Microsoft Windows and Office for Mac licenses are heavily discounted this weekend, with prices dipping to as low as $9.97.

StackSocial is hosting deals on Microsoft Windows and Office licenses, with Windows 11 discounted to $9.97 and Office Home 2024 for Mac marked down to $112.97, the latter down from $179.

Shop Microsoft deals at StackSocial

It’s worth checking compatibility for the Windows license, as StackSocial states the version is designed for PCs that need a new license for Windows and if your PC is running Windows 10 and is unable to use Windows Update to install the free upgrade to Windows 11, you will not be able to install this version of Windows 11.

For the Office Home 2024 license, the one-use code will be connected with your Microsoft Account, rather than your actual device. It can be installed on one supported Mac or PC for non-commercial use.

This is also a standalone license for Office Home 2024 and it’s not Microsoft 365. At press time, Microsoft’s product lifecycle spans five years, and the company states Office 2024 will be retired on Oct. 10, 2029.

According to Stack, the codes, which are supplied by an authorized Microsoft Partner, must be redeemed within 7 days of purchase. See StackSocial for terms and conditions related to the offers.

HP has a new mini PC on sale in the U.S., and it is difficult to look at the machine without thinking of Apple’s Mac mini. The OmniDesk Mini has a similarly compact footprint and starts at $799.99, making it $100 cheaper than the recently announced M6 Mac mini.

The similarities mostly stop there. The base OmniDesk Mini is powered by Intel’s Core 3 304, a five-core, five-thread Wildcat Lake processor. It comes with 8GB of LPDDR5X memory and a 256GB SSD. HP also offers Core 5 320 configurations with up to 16GB of memory. So, despite the Mac mini-like dimensions, this is better viewed as a compact Windows PC than a direct rival to Apple’s latest desktop.

HP has packed plenty into a very small box

The OmniDesk Mini measures 5.12 x 5.12 x 1.89 inches and weighs just over a pound. For someone trying to free up desk space, that is probably its biggest attraction. HP has still managed to fit a useful selection of ports into the chassis. There are three USB-C ports, two USB-A ports, HDMI 2.0b, Ethernet, and several audio connections. The machine can also support up to three displays.

Storage can be expanded through two M.2 slots, but the LPDDR5X memory is onboard and cannot be upgraded later. Wi-Fi 6 and Bluetooth 5.4 come standard, with Wi-Fi 6E and Bluetooth 5.3 available as an option.

Who should actually buy the OmniDesk Mini instead of a Mac mini?

The bigger problem for HP is sitting only $100 higher up the price ladder. Apple’s M6 Mac mini starts at $899 and comes with 16GB of unified memory as standard. The Core 3 304 puts the base OmniDesk Mini in a much lower performance tier, so the $100 saving comes with a substantial compromise. Even the higher-end Core 5 320 configurations do not really change what this machine is.

I would mainly consider the OmniDesk Mini if Windows is a requirement or if Linux is part of the plan. For anyone comfortable with macOS, not strapped for cash, and willing to wait for the M6 Mac mini to ship, spending the extra $100 looks like the much stronger purchase.

No. Bangladesh’s Gambling Prevention Act, 2026 expressly makes involvement in online or remote gambling and online betting offenses. The law also reaches conduct such as using an online gambling account, making gambling-related financial transfers, certain promotional activity, and specified use of technical infrastructure to support or restore gambling access.

This article explains the published law in general terms and is not individualized legal advice. Actual criminal liability, procedure and sentencing depend on the facts of a particular case and the decisions of the relevant authorities and courts.

The Short Answer: Online Gambling and Betting Are Prohibited

Bangladesh now has a dedicated statute dealing expressly with online gambling rather than relying primarily on a nineteenth-century gambling law or a general cybercrime provision. The Gambling Prevention Act, 2026 was enacted as Act No. 98 of 2026 on July 1, 2026 and took effect immediately.

Section 5 states that a person involved in online or remote gambling commits an offense. Section 6 separately makes involvement in online betting an offense.

The distinction matters because the Act defines online betting broadly. It includes sports betting, live betting, exchange betting, casino betting, virtual betting, fantasy betting and esports betting. Online or remote gambling is also defined broadly enough to include more than simply operating a gambling website.

For example, using an online gambling account and placing an online sports bet are both activities the Act addresses, although the offenses and statutory maximum penalties are not identical.

What Changed on July 1, 2026?

July 1, 2026 was a significant legal transition. Bangladesh introduced a standalone gambling statute and, on the same date, enacted an amendment removing the gambling provision that had appeared in the Cyber Security Act, 2026.

The Gambling Prevention Act replaced the 1867 law

Section 49 of the Gambling Prevention Act expressly repeals the Public Gambling Act, 1867, while preserving specified earlier actions, orders and pending proceedings. The 1867 Act therefore should not be presented as Bangladesh’s current primary gambling statute when explaining the legal position in September 2026.

The change is substantial because the 2026 Act directly defines digital concepts that the 1867 law could not have contemplated, including online gambling accounts, digital gambling platforms, online betting, digital wallets, cryptocurrency and other digital assets.

Cyber Security Act section 20 is no longer the current gambling provision

The chronology is easy to misstate. Bangladesh enacted the Cyber Security Act, 2026 as Act No. 81 of 2026 on April 10, 2026. That law originally contained section 20 dealing with gambling in cyberspace.

However, the current Cyber Security Act records that section 20 was deleted by the Cyber Security (Amendment) Act, 2026. The official 2026 Acts register lists the Gambling Prevention Act as Act No. 98 and the Cyber Security amendment as Act No. 99, both dated July 1, 2026.

An article published before that change may have accurately cited Cyber Security Act section 20 at the time, but that provision should not be presented as the current primary basis for Bangladesh’s online-gambling prohibition.

What Counts as Online Gambling Under the 2026 Law?

The statute does not limit online gambling to running a casino website. Its definitions cover several kinds of conduct involving accounts, platforms, payments and participation.

Using an online gambling account

The Act’s definition of online or remote gambling includes opening, operating or using an online gambling account. It also includes operating online gambling websites, apps, servers or digital platforms and running gambling or betting groups, pages or channels on social media.

That wording matters because the statutory framework is not confined to bookmakers, platform owners or software operators. A person does not need to own the gambling platform for account activity to fall within conduct described by the law.

Casino and sportsbook activity

The Act separately defines online betting as betting conducted online, digitally or electronically on the outcome of a sport, competition, esports event, election, entertainment event or another event in return for money or property.

The listed categories include:

• sports betting;
• live betting;
• exchange betting;
• casino betting;
• virtual betting;
• fantasy betting; and
• esports betting.

The definition therefore reaches more than conventional sportsbook wagers. Casino betting and several newer forms of digital betting are expressly named.

Foreign gambling platforms are not outside the definitions

The definition of online or remote gambling also includes acting as a representative, agent or associate of a foreign online gambling platform. That matters because offshore operation does not place foreign platforms outside the subject matter of the Act.

A foreign gambling licence can regulate an offshore casino in the jurisdiction that issued the licence without changing whether Bangladesh permits residents to participate. Foreign licensing and domestic legality answer different questions.

The reviewed provisions do not create a general exception simply because an operator is based or licensed outside Bangladesh.

Are Deposits, Withdrawals and Crypto Gambling Covered?

Yes. The law connects gambling activity to its financial flows rather than treating account funding as an unrelated step.

The definitions of online or remote gambling include depositing, withdrawing or transferring money for online-gambling purposes. The Act also defines cryptocurrency and digital assets, including cryptocurrency, tokens, virtual coins, value stored in digital wallets and non-fungible tokens.

Section 14 addresses specified gambling-related use of financial systems, including banks, Mobile Financial Services, digital wallets, hawala, hundi and other financial arrangements. Mobile Financial Service, or MFS, refers here to mobile-linked financial services used for storing or transferring money.

The same section covers converting, storing or transferring gambling money or property through cryptocurrency, virtual assets or other digital assets. Section 25 provides that the section 14 offense is treated as a predicate offense under the Money Laundering Prevention Act, 2012.

A predicate offense is an underlying offense that can support a money-laundering case. This does not mean every bank, wallet or cryptocurrency transaction automatically becomes a money-laundering offense. The gambling connection and the elements of the applicable offenses still matter.

In practical terms, a bank, wallet or mobile-payment service being technically capable of processing a transaction does not make the underlying gambling activity lawful.

Does an Offshore Gambling Licence Make a Site Legal in Bangladesh?

No general foreign-licence exception appears in the reviewed provisions of Bangladesh’s Gambling Prevention Act. An offshore licence and Bangladesh legality operate at different jurisdictional levels.

A licence issued in Curaçao, Malta or another jurisdiction may establish that an operator is authorized or supervised there. It does not itself grant permission to customers in every other country.

This distinction is especially important when a gambling website uses its foreign licence as evidence that it is “legal.” That statement may describe its position in the licensing jurisdiction but does not answer whether the relevant activity is lawful in Bangladesh.

Understanding what a Curaçao gambling licence protects requires separating the regulator’s oversight of the operator from the law governing a customer’s location.

Likewise, comparing offshore and local gambling licences helps separate authorization issued in one jurisdiction from permission to offer or use gambling services in another.

What Does the Law Say About VPNs and Mirror Sites?

The Gambling Prevention Act does not establish a general ban on ordinary Virtual Private Network use. Section 12 instead addresses listed technical infrastructure when it is used for specified gambling-related conduct.

A Virtual Private Network, or VPN, routes network traffic through an intermediary server and can conceal or alter information about a user’s apparent network location. A proxy also acts as an intermediary, while the Act defines a mirror site as an alternative domain, copy or republished version of a previously blocked or prohibited gambling website.

Section 12 addresses using VPNs, proxies, mirror sites, hosting, domain services, cloud infrastructure, Content Delivery Networks or other technical infrastructure to operate gambling, conceal gambling information, assist gambling activity, reactivate a blocked gambling platform or use an alternative domain.

Section 23 provides the penalty for the section 12 offense. The qualification matters: saying simply that “VPNs are illegal in Bangladesh” would be broader than what this gambling provision states.

Likewise, the fact that a blocked or unavailable gambling platform can be reached through a mirror or another technical route does not establish legal permission to use it. Technical reachability and legality are separate questions.

A broader explanation of whether a VPN changes gambling legality must therefore distinguish network access from the law governing the underlying activity.

What Are the Penalties?

The Act does not assign one universal penalty to every gambling-related offense. The table below compares several statutory maximums relevant to online activity. These are maximum penalties written into the statute, not automatic sentences.

The official Act should be read for the exact elements of each offense. A statutory maximum is the highest punishment authorized by that provision; it does not mean every allegation or conviction produces that outcome.

Actual liability and sentencing can depend on the facts, evidence, charges, procedure and court findings in an individual case.

Can Gambling Sites or Accounts Be Blocked or Frozen?

The Act provides several enforcement mechanisms, but the existence of those powers should not be confused with proof that they have been used against a particular operator or account.

Section 38 authorizes the government or designated authority to block, remove or prohibit gambling-related websites, applications, servers, domains, IP addresses, URLs, social-media pages, groups, channels and other digital gambling platforms. Mirror sites, clone sites and alternative domains used for gambling activity may also be blocked.

Separate provisions address financial accounts and assets. Section 31 permits an investigating officer, with court permission, to temporarily freeze an accused person’s bank account, MFS account, digital wallet or crypto wallet when needed for an investigation. Section 29 allows a court to order confiscation of specified money, property and digital assets used in or obtained from an offense. Section 39 permits a court to order closure of specified financial accounts used for gambling.

For example, if a betting website suddenly becomes unreachable, blocking is one possible explanation. It would still be incorrect to state that Bangladesh authorities blocked that particular domain without direct evidence.

Likewise, the existence of account-freezing or closure powers does not establish that every gambling-related transaction automatically produces such an order.

What About Advertising, Influencers and Affiliate Links?

The Act also addresses specified gambling promotion rather than focusing only on players and operators.

Section 11 applies to persons and entities including media outlets, digital platforms, influencers, artists, athletes and celebrities when they conduct specified misleading gambling promotion, make false promises of profit, use inducement advertising, sponsorship, affiliate marketing or referral campaigns for gambling purposes. Section 22 sets a maximum penalty of 3 years’ imprisonment, a fine of up to Tk 50 lakh, or both for the section 11 offense.

This does not mean every journalistic mention, academic discussion or neutral reference to a gambling company automatically constitutes prohibited promotion. Whether conduct satisfies an offense depends on the facts and the statutory elements.

The distinction matters for publishers and influencers. A neutral legal explanation performs a different function from material designed to induce gambling participation, promise gambling profits or generate gambling referrals.

Which Law Should You Use for Current Bangladesh Gambling Information?

For the current position in September 2026, the starting point is the Gambling Prevention Act, 2026.

The Public Gambling Act, 1867 remains relevant to historical context and saved proceedings, but the new Act expressly repealed it. Cyber Security Act section 20 is also historical rather than current for this issue because the Cyber Security (Amendment) Act, 2026 deleted that provision on July 1, 2026.

This distinction matters when reading older articles. A page can have been accurate when written yet become outdated after a statutory amendment or replacement.

When evaluating a current claim about Bangladesh online-gambling law, check the publication date, the exact statute and section being cited, and whether a later law has amended, repealed or replaced that provision.

Bottom Line

Online gambling and online betting are expressly prohibited under Bangladesh’s Gambling Prevention Act, 2026. The law reaches more than platform operators: it addresses gambling-account use, online betting, gambling-related money transfers, specified promotional conduct and certain technical methods used to operate, assist or restore gambling access.

The current framework dates from July 1, 2026. The Public Gambling Act, 1867 has been repealed, and Cyber Security Act section 20 should not be presented as the current primary online-gambling offense because that provision was deleted on the same date.

A foreign licence, functioning payment method or technically accessible website does not independently establish that online gambling is lawful in Bangladesh. Anyone facing an actual investigation, charge, frozen account or other legal consequence should obtain advice from a qualified Bangladesh lawyer based on the specific facts.