Philippines: Rules for POGO asset forfeiture come into effect 24 August

Dig Deeper

The Backstory

A ban moves from shutdowns to asset recovery

The Philippines’ new rules on civil forfeiture mark a shift in the government’s campaign against Philippine offshore gaming operators, from closing businesses and deporting workers to stripping the industry of the property and equipment that allowed it to operate. The measures, taking effect Aug. 24, give courts a clearer process to freeze, control and ultimately forfeit buildings, gaming equipment, records and other assets tied to banned offshore gaming activity.

That step follows a year in which the state moved from regulatory retreat to prohibition. POGOs were once licensed and taxed as a revenue source, especially after formal regulation expanded under former President Rodrigo Duterte. By 2024, however, raids and legislative inquiries had recast the sector as a national security and law enforcement problem, with authorities linking some hubs to human trafficking, cyber scams, money laundering and immigration violations.

The current rules are rooted in the Anti-POGO Act of 2025, which strengthened the ban that took full effect at the start of the year. The law did more than outlaw remaining operators. It sought to make recurrence harder by targeting the physical and financial infrastructure behind offshore gaming, including assets held by operators, facilitators and property owners.

How the industry went from licensed to prohibited

POGOs were introduced as a licensed offshore gaming model in 2016, selling online gambling services to customers outside the Philippines. The sector generated tax and fee income and supported a network of office landlords, service providers and foreign workers. That economic footprint later became part of the political argument over whether the industry’s benefits outweighed its costs.

In 2021, the government enacted Republic Act No. 11590, a tax and regulatory framework for offshore gaming. The law, available through the Bureau of Internal Revenue as Republic Act No. 11590 guidance, formalized revenue collection from offshore gaming licensees and related service providers. It represented the state’s attempt to supervise and profit from the sector rather than eliminate it.

That approach unraveled as high-profile raids exposed alleged scam compounds, detained workers and suspected organized crime networks operating under or around POGO structures. President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. announced the ban in July 2024 and later formalized it by executive order, setting the stage for all POGOs to close by Jan. 1, 2025. By then, the debate had shifted from whether POGOs could be better regulated to whether any legitimate version of the business could survive the reputational and enforcement crisis.

The legislative response culminated when the Senate approved the Anti-POGO Act of 2025, repealing the earlier tax regime and adding penalties intended to reach beyond operators. The law’s inclusion of property owners reflected a core enforcement lesson: offshore gaming hubs depended on landlords, facilities, equipment suppliers and local intermediaries, not only corporate license holders.

Raids kept pressure on remaining networks

Even after the formal ban took effect, enforcement agencies continued to find alleged offshore gaming activity. The persistence of such operations gave lawmakers and regulators a practical justification for asset forfeiture rules: shutting a hub did not necessarily prevent equipment, locations or corporate shells from being reused.

In Makati City, authorities arrested 131 people after finding what they described as a POGO hub operating through a software development company. The operation, detailed in a report on the Makati City POGO raid and arrests, involved foreign and Filipino suspects and the seizure of electronic devices and documents allegedly used for illegal offshore gaming. Police said companies linked to the site were part of a broader network.

Such cases underscored why the government wanted courts to act directly against property. If computers, servers, office premises and supporting documents remain available after arrests, authorities risk fighting the same operation under a different name. Civil forfeiture is designed to close that gap by treating the property itself as the subject of proceedings, separate from the pace and complexity of criminal cases against individuals.

That distinction matters in the POGO context because criminal investigations can involve foreign suspects, multiple corporate entities and allegations ranging from illegal gambling to cybercrime and trafficking. Asset proceedings can move on a different track, allowing the state to preserve contested property while determining whether it was used in prohibited activity.

Immigration became an enforcement front

The crackdown also turned heavily on immigration control. Many illegal POGO cases involved foreign nationals accused of overstaying visas, working without documents or participating in offshore gaming after the ban. Deportations became a visible tool for carrying out the president’s order and reducing the labor base available to illegal hubs.

The Bureau of Immigration’s removal of Chinese nationals from the country illustrated that strategy. In one operation, authorities deported 84 people arrested in raids in Tarlac, Cebu and Parañaque, according to reporting on the Bureau of Immigration’s POGO crackdown. Officials said the deportees had overstayed or lacked proper documents, conditions frequently identified in illegal gambling investigations.

Lawmakers later pushed for tighter rules around deportation itself. Sen. Risa Hontiveros argued that the Philippines should not simply expel suspects in ways that allow criminal networks to relocate elsewhere in the region. Her campaign for broader legislation, described in coverage of the push for the Anti-POGO Act and regional cooperation, framed POGOs as part of a transnational web of scam operations, trafficking and money movement.

That regional dimension is central to the stakes. Offshore gaming and scam hubs can shift jurisdictions when enforcement tightens. If equipment, capital and organizers remain intact, the problem can reappear domestically or migrate to neighboring countries. Philippine lawmakers have therefore linked asset seizure, immigration action and regional coordination as parts of the same strategy.

Regulator sought to close the door on a comeback

As enforcement continued, the Philippine Amusement and Gaming Corp. moved to counter claims that offshore gaming licenses might return. PAGCOR warned that scam letters and messages were circulating, telling potential investors they could pay large sums to secure supposed POGO slots. The regulator said there was no plan to revive licensing and urged recipients to report the solicitations.

The warning, covered in a report on PAGCOR’s denial that POGOs would reopen, showed how the old licensing system still had commercial value for fraudsters. Even after prohibition, the perception that access to offshore gaming licenses could be bought created another avenue for scams.

That is why the forfeiture framework carries significance beyond legal procedure. It reinforces the message that offshore gaming is no longer a dormant regulated sector awaiting reopening. By empowering courts to act on POGO-linked assets, the government is trying to remove both the tools and the financial incentives for a comeback.

The approach also supports the Philippines’ broader effort to repair its financial crime profile. The country was removed from the Financial Action Task Force grey list in 2025, a development cited by lawmakers as enforcement tightened. Sustaining that progress requires showing that bans are backed by durable mechanisms to trace, preserve and confiscate assets tied to illicit activity.

The next test is courtroom execution

The practical burden now shifts to prosecutors, regulators, police and courts. Regional Trial Courts will need detailed petitions identifying assets, explaining their connection to prohibited POGO activity and justifying provisional measures. Respondents will have a chance to contest the claims, and decisions can be reviewed by the Court of Appeals.

That process may be slower than raids or deportations, but it is aimed at a different result. The government is no longer measuring success only by the number of hubs closed or foreign workers removed. It is trying to dismantle the infrastructure that made the industry resilient despite repeated crackdowns.

If the rules are applied effectively, property owners, financiers and service providers may face greater risk from hosting or supporting illegal gaming operations. If implementation falters, assets could remain tied up, deteriorate or return to circulation through proxies. The Aug. 24 rules therefore represent both an enforcement milestone and a test of whether the Philippines can convert a political ban into lasting institutional control.