# OCC Interpretive Letter No. 923: Letter discusses various advertisements and concludes that they do not violate 12 U.S.C. 25a prohibition on publicizing lotteries either because banks do not pay for the ads or events described are not lotteries > Federal · Agency guidance · In force URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/OCC_INT0923 ## Section - **Citation:** OCC Interpretive Letter No. 923 - **Heading:** Letter discusses various advertisements and concludes that they do not violate 12 U.S.C. 25a prohibition on publicizing lotteries either because banks do not pay for the ads or events described are not lotteries - **Jurisdiction:** Federal - **Kind:** Agency guidance - **Status:** In force - **Text as of:** August 14, 2026 - **Source:** Compiled text - **Location:** OCC Interpretive Letters / Letter discusses various advertisements and concludes that they do not violate 12 U.S.C. 25a prohibition on publicizing lotteries either because banks do not pay for the ads or events described are not lotteries. ## Text O Comptroller of the Currency Administrator of National Banks Washington, DC 20219 December 19, 2001 Interpretive Letter #923 January 2002 12 USC 25AA Dear [ ]: This is in response to your letter of November 20, 2001, in which you alleged that a number of banks in the [ ] area are violating 12 U.S.C. § 25a by advertising lotteries. You included copies of several advertisements and promotional mailings for the OCC’s evaluation. I have reviewed all of the items. In addition, I have contacted the legal departments of, [ A ], and [ B ], to obtain further information concerning certain of the advertisements and events. Based on this information and review, it is my conclusion that none of the items violate 12 U.S.C. § 25a. My reasoning is explained in more detail below. Discussion Twelve U.S.C. § 25a prohibits national banks from participating in certain lottery-related activities. Among other things, national banks may not “announce, advertise, or publicize the existence of any lottery.” 12 U.S.C. § 25a(a)(3). You believe that the banks have violated this prohibition. The statute defines “lottery” as follows: The term “lottery” includes any arrangement whereby three or more persons (the “participants”) advance money or credit to another in exchange for the possibility or expectation that one or more but not all of the participants (“the winners”) will receive by reason of their advances more than the amounts they have advanced, the identity of the winners being determined by any means which includes — (A) a random selection; (B) a game, race, or contest; or (C) any record or tabulation of the result of one or more events in which any participant has no interest except for its bearing upon the possibility that he may become a winner. 12 U.S.C. § 25a(c)(2). son of their advances more than the amounts they have advanced, the identity of the winners being determined by any means which includes — (A) a random selection; (B) a game, race, or contest; or (C) any record or tabulation of the result of one or more events in which any participant has no interest except for its bearing upon the possibility that he may become a winner. 12 U.S.C. § 25a(c)(2). - - 2 With this background in mind, I will now discuss the individual items. [ A ] “Focus on Fashion” The first item is a newspaper advertisement that reads in part as follows: [ Co. ]’s 13th Annual Charity Fashion Show & Luncheon “Focus on Fashion” . . . Tickets $35 Grand Raffle and Elegant Basket Raffle . . . Sponsored by: [[ A ] logo] . . . You asked if this isn’t involvement in the sponsoring of the advertisement, citing OCC Interpretive Letter No. 900, June 19, 2000. In that letter, I concluded that a national bank could donate an item for a civic fundraising raffle and be identified in advertisements as the donor of the item, as long as the bank had no involvement with the sponsoring or display of the advertisements. I contacted [ A ], to obtain information about this advertisement. The Bank informed me that the [ Co. ] paid for this ad, not the Bank. [ A ] is listed as a sponsor because it donated money for the event. Therefore, the fact situation here is very similar to that in Interpretive Letter No. 900, i.e., the Bank is identified as a supporter of the event in an advertisement paid for by someone else. As I concluded in that letter, this type of situation does not violate 12 U.S.C. § 25a because there has been no action by the Bank to publicize the lottery. [ A ] “Win the Lottery” The second item is a newspaper advertisement promoting [ A ] home equity loans e., the Bank is identified as a supporter of the event in an advertisement paid for by someone else. As I concluded in that letter, this type of situation does not violate 12 U.S.C. § 25a because there has been no action by the Bank to publicize the lottery. [ A ] “Win the Lottery” The second item is a newspaper advertisement promoting [ A ] home equity loans. The top of the ad displays the following statement: How can the 89,545,673 people who didn’t win the lottery this weekend make those much-needed home improvements? Introducing our great rates on a home equity line of credit. - - 3 (Emphasis added.) In your view, this is announcing the existence of a lottery. As a statute with criminal penalties, (see 18 U.S.C. § 1306), 12 U.S.C. § 25a should be narrowly construed. See Federal Communications Commission v. American Broadcasting Company, 347 U.S. 284, 296 (1954) (construing 18 U.S.C. § 1304, also involving lotteries). For that reason, the prohibition against publicizing a lottery should be interpreted to mean an actual, identifiable lottery, not one that is only hypothetical. See United States v. Halseth, 342 U.S. 277 (1952) (interpreting 18 U.S.C. § 1302, another lottery statute). The phrase “win the lottery” is simply a figure of speech and does not meet this standard. [ A ] Platinum Visa Card The third item appears to be a promotional mailing for a [ A ] credit card. The mailing includes “terms and conditions for the [ A ] platinum Visa card.” Among these terms and conditions is a transaction fee for the purchase of “betting or casino chips or similar items.” You believe that this violates the prohibition on publicizing lotteries. As with the last item, this does not publicize an actual, identifiable lottery. Therefore, in my opinion, it does not violate 12 U.S.C. § 25a terms and conditions for the [ A ] platinum Visa card.” Among these terms and conditions is a transaction fee for the purchase of “betting or casino chips or similar items.” You believe that this violates the prohibition on publicizing lotteries. As with the last item, this does not publicize an actual, identifiable lottery. Therefore, in my opinion, it does not violate 12 U.S.C. § 25a. [ B ] [ ] Shuffle The next item is a newspaper advertisement for the [ B ] [ ] Shuffle 8K race. Although this is not mentioned in the ad, you noted that there was a $30 entry fee to participate in the race, and prizes of $1500, $1000, and $750. You believe this violates 12 U.S.C. § 25a because it is publicizing a game, race, or contest which, in turn, is a lottery. I contacted [ B ], which confirmed that it does sponsor this event (and other races) as charity fundraisers every year, and that the Bank did pay for this ad. Referring back to the statutory definition of “lottery,” it is an “arrangement” in which the winner is determined by the outcome of, among other things, a “game, race, or contest.” It can be seen that the lottery and the race are two separate things: the lottery is the “arrangement,” while the race is the means of determining the winner of the lottery. Looking at it another way, under federal case law, one of the essential elements of a lottery is that the winners are selected by chance. Federal Communications Commission v. American Broadcasting Company, supra. As between the participants in a race, the winner is determined by skill, not chance. Therefore, the race, itself, is not a lottery. Rather, a betting pool among nonparticipants on the outcome of the race would be a lottery. Accordingly, this advertisement does not violate 12 U.S.C. § 25a. [ ] Bowling Party [ ] Pro Cup he winner is determined by skill, not chance. Therefore, the race, itself, is not a lottery. Rather, a betting pool among nonparticipants on the outcome of the race would be a lottery. Accordingly, this advertisement does not violate 12 U.S.C. § 25a. [ ] Bowling Party [ ] Pro Cup - - 4 These are newspaper advertisements in which [ B ] is listed as a sponsor of the events. You noted that these are fundraising events in which entry fees are charged and there are prizes for the winners. It seems likely that these events are not lotteries, for the reasons discussed above. In any event, the Bank informed me that it did not pay for either of these ads. Rather, it donated money to the events and was listed as a sponsor in advertisements paid for by the promoters of the events. This brings these ads within the rule of Interpretive Letter No. 900 as discussed above, so there is no violation of 12 U.S.C. § 25a. [ C ] Cancun Raffle The next item is a newspaper advertisement for a charity raffle offering as a prize a trip to Cancun, Mexico. [ C ] and other companies are listed as sponsors. As [ C ] is not a national bank and is not regulated by the OCC, I will not comment on this item. [ D ] Credit Card The final item is a photocopy of a mailing promoting a credit card offered by [ D ]. This is similar to the [ A ] credit card mailing discussed above. It lists transaction fees for the purchase of “bets, lottery tickets, and casino gaming chips.” The discussion of the [ A ] credit card mailing applies equally to this item. Conclusion I have carefully reviewed the advertisements and other items that you submitted, and contacted the banks involved to obtain further information where necessary edit card mailing discussed above. It lists transaction fees for the purchase of “bets, lottery tickets, and casino gaming chips.” The discussion of the [ A ] credit card mailing applies equally to this item. Conclusion I have carefully reviewed the advertisements and other items that you submitted, and contacted the banks involved to obtain further information where necessary. For the reasons discussed above, I conclude that none of the items violates 12 U.S.C. § 25a. Either the banks did not pay for the advertisements, or the items do not publicize a lottery within the meaning of the statute. I hope that this has been responsive to your concerns, and I thank you for bringing this matter to our attention. Sincerely, -signed- Christopher C. Manthey Counsel Bank Activities and Structure Division ## Nearby sections - [OCC Interpretive Letter No. 719 Letter concludes that an ESOP is a "company' for purposes of 12 U.S.C. 371c and that an ESOP that controls at least 25% of a bank's voting stock is an "affiliate" under sec. 371c (supersedes existing OCC interpretive letter #261). (10/26/89)](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/OCC_INT0719.md) - [OCC Interpretive Letter No. 720 Group of affiliate national banks may collectively own, through operating subsidiaries, minority interest in a merchant credit card processing subsidiary. (01/26/96)](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/OCC_INT0720.md) - [OCC Interpretive Letter No. 722 A national bank may invest CIF assets in mutual funds, including mutual funds that pay the bank a servicing fee, without the bank having to reduce its trustee fees, if the bank concludes, based upon a reasoned opinion of trust counsel, that such an arrangement is authorized by applicable state law, is consistent with the trust instrument, is appropriate for the particular trust accounts, and is consistent with OCC regulations, including in particular 12 C.F.R. 9.18(b)(12). (03/12/96)](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/OCC_INT0722.md) - [OCC Interpretive Letter No. 724 Bank can sell vehicle service contracts to customers who use home equity loan proceeds to purchase a vehicle, and the maturity of the service contract may be different from the maturity of the loan. (04/22/96)](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/OCC_INT0724.md) - [OCC Interpretive Letter No. 725 National bank to establish an operating subsidiary to engage in permissible derivatives-related activities. (05/10/96)](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/OCC_INT0725.md) - [OCC Interpretive Letter No. 726 Letter concerns the application of the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) regulations to financial institutions' support of microenterprise lending programs. (06/21/96).](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/OCC_INT0726.md) - [OCC Interpretive Letter No. 730 Letter concludes that loans proposed by the bank to an unaffiliated distributor of mutual funds would not be subject to interaffiliate lending restrictions contained in 12 U.S.C. 371C. (05/29/96).](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/OCC_INT0730.md) - [OCC Interpretive Letter No. 732 National bank may make a 5.5% investment in software company which is engaged in the design, development, marketing and maintenance of a network for electronic funds transfers and electronic data interchange, including transacting electronic commerce and marketing software products for use on its world-wide electronic commerce network. (05/10/96).](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/OCC_INT0732.md) - [OCC Interpretive Letter No. 733 National bank receiver is subject to the rights of secured creditors and creditors entitled to setoff. U.S. legal principles regarding enforcement of security interests are applicable to a receivership of a federal branch or agency conducted under National Bank Act. Therefore, receiver of an uninsured federal branch or agency does not have the right to interfere with the rights of secured creditors, including application of collateral held in U.S. to obligations of a non-U.S. office of the bank. (06/19/96).](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/OCC_INT0733.md) - [OCC Interpretive Letter No. 736 Lending limit exception for participations not limited to banks. Non-banks may act as participants. (07/25/96)](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/OCC_INT0736.md) - [OCC Interpretive Letter No. 737 Huntington National Bank's acquisition of minority interest in a limited liability company providing stored value systems. (08/19/96)](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/OCC_INT0737.md) - [OCC Interpretive Letter No. 738 National bank's participation in a guaranty issued by an agent for a syndication of lenders with respect to their borrower's letter of credit reimbursement obligations to another bank or financial institution is permissible under I.R. 7.1016. (08/14/96)](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/OCC_INT0738.md) - [OCC Interpretive Letter No. 740 Letter advises the Bank as follows: 1) The question of whether "salary" as used in 12 C.F.R. 2.4 includes an officer's base salary, bonuses, director's fees and/or any other compensation paid by the Bank must be determined by the Bank's management; 2) the question of whether the payment bonuses for credit life sales under 12 C.F.R. 2.4 is based on salary received by the recipient in a calendar year, a fiscal year, or any 12-month period must be determined by the Bank's management; and 3) pursuant to 12 C.F.R. 2.4, if the Bank's CEO is a loan officer and the CEO participates in the bonus plan under which payments based on credit life insurance sales are made, the CEO must be included in averaging the salaries of loan officers that participate in the Bank's bonus or incentive plan. (08/19/96)](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/OCC_INT0740.md) - [OCC Interpretive Letter No. 741 National bank may acquire majority interest in company which operates call center facility which operates programs by which potential customers for new or used automobiles may access databases containing information on the used and new car inventories of numerous automobile dealerships in its metropolitan area. (08/19/96)](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/OCC_INT0741.md) --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/OCC_INT0923. Check the current official text before relying on it. Not legal advice.