On 24 August 2026, following its required publication, the Rule on the Civil Forfeiture of POGO-Related Assets (“the Rules”), takes effect. The Rules set out the judicial process for forfeiting property and other assets connected with prohibited POGO activities and mark a significant development in the government’s efforts to dismantle illegal POGO operations. The government may now pursue the forfeiture of POGO-related assets independently of a criminal case, allowing it to address not only those responsible for illegal offshore gaming but also the property and resources used to facilitate or benefit from such activities.
POGO-related operations may involve buildings, businesses, financial resources, equipment, and other assets that may be used to facilitate or sustain prohibited activities. Now the government’s response is no longer limited to determining who should be prosecuted. It may also address what property was used to facilitate the prohibited activity and what assets or proceeds were derived from it.
This prevents POGO-related assets from being retained or reused for unlawful activities.
Distinguishing Civil Forfeiture from Criminal Proceedings
Section 15 of the Anti-POGO Act provides that, independent of a criminal case, any property, tool, instrument, or other asset used in the commission of acts prohibited under Section 4 may be subject to civil forfeiture upon a finding of probable cause, in accordance with the rules of procedure formulated by the Supreme Court.
This provision is significant because it makes clear that “civil forfeiture may proceed independently of a criminal case” without waiting for prosecution or conviction.
The Rules give effect to this provision by requiring the court to determine probable cause at the very beginning of the forfeiture proceeding. Probable cause refers to the existence of such facts and circumstances leading to the conclusion that a property, tool, instrument, or any other asset was directly or indirectly used in the commission of any of the prohibited acts under Republic Act No. 12312, or that the proceeds were derived or realized from any prohibited activities, viewed from the standpoint of a reasonably discreet, prudent, or cautious person, and in light of the totality of circumstances.
The Rules, therefore, set a threshold at the outset, requiring the court, within 24 hours from receipt of the petition, to determine whether probable cause exists based on the petition and its attachments. If probable cause is found, the case proceeds and the court may issue provisional measures to prevent the concealment, transfer, conversion, or disposal of the assets.
A finding of probable cause, however, does not mean that the property will ultimately be forfeited. At the end of the proceedings, the government must establish its entitlement to the property by a preponderance of evidence. Under Section 25 of the Rules, the court may order the forfeiture of the POGO-related assets only when the evidence preponderates in favor of the government. Thus, probable cause serves as the threshold for allowing the case to proceed, while preponderance of evidence is the standard for the final forfeiture of the property.
This is distinct from a criminal case, where the prosecution must establish the accused’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt before a conviction may be entered.
Protecting Property and Legitimate Interests
The government’s power to pursue POGO-related assets is not without limits. Section 14 of the Rules expressly protects the interests of persons who may have acquired or hold property without knowledge of its connection to prohibited activities. It provides that no property shall be forfeited to the extent of the interest of an innocent owner, bona fide purchaser for value, or secured creditor who establishes that they did not know, and had no reason to know, of the prohibited acts and did not consent to or participate in them.
The Rules thus strike a necessary balance by giving the government the power to act against assets connected with prohibited POGO activities while ensuring that persons who neither knew of nor participated in the unlawful conduct are not unfairly deprived of their legitimate interests.
Looking Beyond Prosecution
The Rules give practical effect to an important enforcement mechanism under the Anti-POGO Act. It allows the government to pursue property connected with prohibited offshore gaming without requiring a prior criminal prosecution, while protecting legitimate property interests, third-party rights, and due process.
The Rules therefore reflect a broader approach to enforcement. Addressing illegal offshore gaming means not only prosecuting those responsible but also addressing the property, infrastructure, and proceeds connected with these activities, while ensuring that forfeiture is carried out fairly and within the bounds of law.
This article was first published by BusinessWorld at bworldonline.com. It is only for general informational and educational purposes and is not offered as and does not constitute legal advice or opinion.
Atty. Clark Manuel M. Esmas is an Associate of the Angara Abello Concepcion Regala & Cruz Law Offices (ACCRALAW), Cebu Branch.
[email protected]
(632) 231 1449