The problem of determining the side of the legal relationship is crucial for its existence. The Gambling Act of 19 November 2009 created a number of questions concerning the definition of the entity for which the penalty may be imposed in respect of games on slot machines outside of casino. It requires the clarification of how the extent of such activities and characteristics allows the recognition of a particular entity as the organizer of the game and impose on him an administrative penalty pursuant to the provisions above. This issue is not clear because of the lack of statutory definition the slot machine menager. No precise terms used in the Gambling act lead to different interpretations of the law. The case law of judicial administration had to face the problems outlined above and, more importantly, to propose methods to solve them. The customs authorities issued a number of decisions on the imposition of administrative penalties. Many of them had to be assessed by the courts. In many cases, the parties that were punished with penalties, had argued that they should not be parties to the administrative proceedings. Punished claimed that the customs authorities have not shown their interest. The courts had to assess when it is possible to impose a penalty for offering games on slot machines outside of casino. Presentation of the indicated issues required analysis of judgments and administrative decisions. It was necessary to analyse the laws and methods of their application by the courts. This made it possible to identify the correct meaning of provisions. Analyzing the issues outlined author used the method of formal and dogmatic. Analysis of the Gambling Act showed that an administrative penalty may be applied to too many people. Penalties may apply to persons carrying out only ancillary activities. Penalties may apply to persons acting for the organizers of the game. This extension of the possibility to impose administrative sanctions would be contrary to the principle of the rule of law and citizens’ trust in the state. It was necessary to correct the linguistic meaning of the provision. For this purpose it was necessary to take advantage of: systemic, comparative and historical interpretation of the law. This allowed to reduce the punishment to those who not benefit of gambling. It was also explained who Penalties may be applicable, and under what conditions.