Civil Forfeiture of POGO-Related Assets

News hook: On August 10, 2026 the Supreme Court En Banc approved the Rule on the Civil Forfeiture of POGO-Related Assets, implementing Republic Act No. 12312, the Anti-POGO Act of 2025. Under Section 15 of that law, all buildings, structures, facilities, materials, gaming equipment, paraphernalia, and proceeds used in or obtained from prohibited POGO activities are forfeited in favor of the government. The Rule sets an expedited procedure: probable cause determined within 24 hours, 30 calendar days for each side to present evidence, and judgment within 30 calendar days of the last offer of evidence.

Legal question

Can the government take a building, its equipment, and the money made in it because offshore gaming was conducted there — even if nobody has been convicted of anything? And what protects a landlord or a buyer who had no idea?

Applicable laws and rules

Republic Act No. 12312 (Anti-POGO Act of 2025) — bans offshore gaming operations in the Philippines, including the use or possession of POGO gaming equipment and paraphernalia, and prohibits allowing property to be used for offshore gaming
Republic Act No. 12312, Section 15 — forfeiture in favor of the government of all buildings, structures, facilities, materials, gaming equipment, paraphernalia, and proceeds used in or obtained from prohibited POGO activities
Rule on the Civil Forfeiture of POGO-Related Assets (Supreme Court En Banc, approved August 10, 2026)
Republic Act No. 9160 (Anti-Money Laundering Act of 2001), as amended — the older civil forfeiture regime for unlawful activities, and its Rule of Procedure
1987 Constitution, Article III, Section 1 — due process; Section 9 — private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation
Civil Code provisions on ownership, good faith purchasers, and mortgages
Rules of Court — suppletory application to special civil actions

Why this matters

The POGO ban converted an entire industry into contraband overnight, and it left behind a large stock of physical assets: office towers, converted resorts and hotels, purpose-built compounds, server rooms, and the money that flowed through them. Criminal prosecution of individual operators is slow and often impossible where the principals have left the country.

Civil forfeiture solves that problem for the State by proceeding against the property rather than against a person. It does not require a conviction, it applies a civil standard of proof, and it can reach assets whose owners are beyond the reach of a criminal court.

That same feature is why it is dangerous for third parties. The people most likely to be caught by a POGO forfeiture are not the operators but the Filipino property owners who leased to them, the banks that financed the buildings, and the buyers who acquired property later.

What civil forfeiture is

Civil forfeiture is a court proceeding that allows the government to take ownership of property connected to unlawful activity, independent of a criminal case. The action is directed at the asset, not the person, which is why it can proceed even where no one has been charged, where the accused has fled, or where a criminal case has failed.

The Philippines already had a civil forfeiture regime under the Anti-Money Laundering Act, used against the proceeds of unlawful activities. The new Rule creates a dedicated and faster track for POGO-related assets under RA 12312.

What the Anti-POGO Act bans, and what it forfeits

RA 12312 institutionalizes the total ban on offshore gaming operations in the Philippines. Its prohibitions are broader than running a gaming site: they include the use or possession of POGO gaming equipment and paraphernalia, and allowing houses, buildings, tourism enterprises, vehicles, computers, digital platforms, and other properties to be used for offshore gaming activities.

Section 15 then provides that all buildings, structures, facilities, materials, gaming equipment, paraphernalia, and proceeds used in or obtained from prohibited POGO activities shall be forfeited in favor of the government. The reach is deliberately wide — it captures both the instrumentalities and the proceeds.

How the procedure works

The Rule adopted by the Court is built for speed while attempting to preserve due process. Its main steps:

Filing. The Republic of the Philippines — through law enforcement authorities and other concerned government agencies, represented by the Office of the Solicitor General — files a petition for civil forfeiture before the appropriate Regional Trial Court.
24-hour probable cause determination. Within 24 hours of receiving the petition, the RTC must determine whether probable cause exists. If it does not, the petition must be dismissed; and if the assets had already been seized, the respondent may seek their release once the dismissal becomes final.
Preservation measures. If probable cause is found, the court may order measures to preserve and protect the assets while the case is pending, to prevent their transfer, concealment, disposal, or dissipation.
Evidence. Each party is given 30 calendar days to present evidence. Postponements are allowed only in exceptional circumstances — force majeure, acts of God, or the duly substantiated physical inability of a witness to testify.
Judgment. The court must render judgment within 30 calendar days from its action on the last presenting party's offer of evidence.
Standard of proof. If the government proves its case by preponderance of evidence, the court must declare the assets forfeited in favor of the government and grant other appropriate relief.
Immediate effect. A judgment of forfeiture takes effect immediately, and an appeal does not automatically suspend its enforcement.

The Rule also establishes a summary procedure allowing a portion of seized assets to be released before judgment where necessary to support government operations or to protect victims — a provision aimed at the trafficking and forced-labor dimension of the scam-hub problem.

Preponderance of evidence: what the standard change means

This is the single most consequential feature. A criminal conviction requires proof beyond reasonable doubt. Civil forfeiture under this Rule requires only a preponderance of evidence — that the government's version is more likely true than not.

In practice, the government can lose a criminal case against an operator and still succeed in forfeiting the building. It can also proceed where the operator has never been identified at all. The trade-off the Rule makes is explicit: proceedings are expedited while ensuring due process, which means the protections are procedural — notice, an opportunity to be heard, the 24-hour probable cause screen, a defined period to present evidence — rather than a heightened standard of proof.

The third-party protections

The Rule provides that a judgment of forfeiture is subject to the rights of innocent owners, buyers in good faith, and secured creditors. These are the three categories that matter to ordinary Filipinos and to lenders, and each requires the claimant to come forward and prove their status.

Innocent owner. The classic case is a landlord who leased a property to a tenant that turned out to be a POGO. The protection is not automatic — it must be asserted in the proceeding, and it depends on showing the owner did not know of and did not consent to the prohibited use. Given that RA 12312 expressly prohibits allowing property to be used for offshore gaming, a landlord who knew, or who ignored obvious signs, is on very weak ground.
Buyer in good faith. A person who purchased the property for value without notice of the taint. As in ordinary property law, this fails where circumstances should have prompted inquiry — a suspiciously low price, visible gaming infrastructure, or a known enforcement history at the address.
Secured creditor. A bank or lender holding a registered mortgage over the property. The protection preserves the security interest, but a lender should expect to have to prove the loan was extended in good faith and that the security was properly constituted.

Because a judgment takes effect immediately and an appeal does not automatically stay it, a third party who waits to assert a claim until after judgment is in a much worse position than one who intervenes during the proceeding.

Practical exposure for landlords and property owners

The prohibition on allowing property to be used for offshore gaming, combined with a forfeiture standard of preponderance of evidence, creates real exposure for owners who lease commercial space. Sensible protective measures:

Know the tenant. Verify the corporate registration, the declared business, and the beneficial owners. A tenant whose declared purpose is vague, whose personnel are overwhelmingly foreign nationals housed on site, or whose fit-out involves large server rooms and unusual power and connectivity demands warrants questions.
Put it in the lease. A clear covenant that the premises will not be used for any activity prohibited by RA 12312, with a right of inspection and immediate termination on breach, is evidence of non-consent.
Act on red flags in writing. If you learn or suspect the premises are being used for offshore gaming, document it, demand cessation in writing, terminate, and report to the authorities. Silence after notice is the fact pattern that destroys an innocent-owner claim.
Keep records. Lease agreements, correspondence, inspection reports, and proof of payments received are what an innocent-owner claim is built from.

What individuals should know

If your property, vehicle, or bank account is the subject of a POGO forfeiture petition, respond inside the proceeding and quickly. The timetable is compressed — 24 hours for the probable cause screen, 30 days per side for evidence, 30 days for judgment — and forfeiture takes effect immediately once ordered. Assert your status as an innocent owner, buyer in good faith, or secured creditor with documentary proof; do not assume the court will infer it.

If you were a worker at a POGO or scam hub, the forfeiture case is not a case against you, and the Rule's provision allowing early release of a portion of seized assets to protect victims is aimed at people in that position. Trafficking victims and those subjected to forced labor have separate remedies and protections, and workers who were themselves coerced should seek assistance rather than avoid the authorities. Note separately that RA 12010, the Anti-Financial Account Scamming Act, criminalizes lending, selling, or renting out a bank account or e-wallet — a common demand made of scam-hub employees, and a serious personal exposure.

Finally, keep the two tracks distinct. The civil forfeiture case decides what happens to the property. Criminal liability under RA 12312, the Anti-Money Laundering Act, the anti-trafficking laws, and the immigration laws is separate, has its own forum, and requires proof beyond reasonable doubt. Winning one does not decide the other.

Ask PHLaw.AI

Try: "I leased my commercial building to a company that turned out to be running an illegal offshore gaming operation. The government has filed a forfeiture case. How do I prove I am an innocent owner?"

Ask about this topic

The New Rule on POGO Asset Forfeiture: No Conviction Required