Short answer. Neither. Article 2015 provides that if both the winner and the loser have perpetrated fraud, no action for recovery can be brought by either. When both sides cheated the law leaves them where it finds them — the loser cannot claim his money back, and the cheating winner gets no protection either. The courts simply refuse both.
What the law says
If both the winner and the loser have perpetrated fraud, no action for recovery can be brought by either
Civil Code, Article 2015 — Cheating in Gambling. Read the full provision →
Mutual fraud closes the courtroom door
Article 2015 draws a sharp line between one-sided and two-sided cheating. Its final sentence is unforgiving: If both the winner and the loser have perpetrated fraud, no action for recovery can be brought by either. Where each side rigged the game, neither may go to court over the outcome. The loser cannot recover what he paid, and the winner — who might otherwise have faced a claim — gains no right of his own. The law does not sort out which cheat cheated worse. It withdraws its help from both and leaves the money where it happened to land.
Contrast with one-sided cheating
The difference in result is stark. Where only the winner cheats, the same article rewards the honest loser handsomely — return of the stake plus exemplary damages of at least the sum lost. Where only the loser cheats, he is a wrongdoer seeking the court's aid and will not get it. But it is the both-cheated case that is treated most bluntly, because there is no innocent party left to protect. The remedy the article otherwise offers exists to shield the honest player from the dishonest one; when nobody at the table was honest, there is nothing for it to shield.
Why the law refuses both
The rule rests on an old principle: a person who comes to court with unclean hands cannot ask it to undo a wrong he shared in. Two cheats are equally at fault, and the courts will not spend their time apportioning spoils between them or restoring a position that both corrupted. Refusing relief to both is also a deterrent — it denies each the comfort of knowing a judge will straighten out the losses afterwards, so neither can treat cheating as a bet he can unwind if it fails. The loss lies where it fell, deliberately.
The practical trap
This makes the both-cheated situation a difficult one to bring anywhere near a court. To prove the other side cheated you will usually have to lay out the whole game, and if that account also shows your own deceit, you have handed the other side the very fact that defeats your claim and possibly exposes you further. Before pursuing recovery for a rigged game, the honest question to answer first is whether your own hands are clean, because Article 2015 makes that, not the size of the loss, the thing the case turns on.