Filing Charges for Large-Scale Swindling (PD 1689) in Investment Scams — Philippines

This article is a one-stop playbook for victims, counsel, and investigators dealing with investment scams that may qualify as large-scale or syndicated swindling under Presidential Decree No. 1689 (PD 1689), in relation to estafa/swindling under the Revised Penal Code (RPC), and companion offenses under the Securities Regulation Code (SRC) and other laws.

1) What PD 1689 Does (and Why It Matters)

PD 1689 is a penalty-enhancing decree. It elevates ordinary estafa/swindling to a more serious, non-bailable charge (when evidence of guilt is strong) when committed (a) by a syndicate or (b) in large scale. It applies to estafa and other forms of swindling punished under Articles 315 and 316 of the RPC.

Syndicated swindling: estafa committed by a syndicate — generally understood as five (5) or more persons who form or manage a group for the common purpose of carrying out the fraudulent scheme; corporate form does not shield individual officers/agents who actively participated.
Large-scale swindling: estafa committed against the general public (multiple victims; public solicitation; broad reach), showing a pattern of mass victimization.

Key effect: Penalties are severe (up to reclusion perpetua); bail may be denied in syndicated cases if the evidence of guilt is strong; courts take jurisdiction and venue seriously; asset recovery tools can be pursued in parallel.

Practical tip: Even if the conduct began as a “failed investment,” PD 1689 focuses on deceit at inception or fraudulent misappropriation, not mere bad business outcomes.

2) Core Theories of Criminal Liability

A. Estafa under the Revised Penal Code (foundation offense)

Investment scams typically track these modalities:

Art. 315(2)(a) — By false pretenses or fraudulent acts (e.g., promising guaranteed high returns, claiming nonexistent licenses/funds, using fabricated financials, Ponzi-type referral rewards). Elements: (i) False pretense or fraudulent representation; (ii) made prior to or at the time of the transaction; (iii) victim relied on it and parted with money/property; (iv) damage resulted.
Art. 315(1)(b) — By misappropriation or conversion of money or property received in trust, on commission, for administration, or under any obligation to deliver/return (e.g., investor funds diverted to personal use). Elements: (i) Receiving money/property in trust or for a specific purpose; (ii) misappropriation/conversion or denial after demand; (iii) prejudice to the owner.
Art. 316 — Other forms of swindling (e.g., disposing of property as one’s own; fraudulent leasing/sale).

PD 1689 then qualifies the estafa as syndicated or large-scale, triggering heavier penalties.

B. Securities Regulation Code (SRC) companion charges

Investment scams often also violate the SRC:

Unregistered securities / illegal public offering (Sec. 8);
Fraud in securities transactions (Sec. 26 — anti-fraud);
Unlicensed selling/brokerage/advisory (Sec. 28). These are separate offenses, typically handled by the SEC and prosecuted by the DOJ; they do not preclude PD 1689 charges when the fact pattern fits estafa.

C. Other possible overlays

Cybercrime (if done online) — certain SRC/RPC offenses may be qualified when committed through ICT.
Anti-Money Laundering Act (AMLA) — laundering/attempted laundering of scam proceeds; asset freezes and forfeiture are possible via AMLC.
B.P. 22 — if post-dated checks issued to lure investors bounce (ancillary).

3) Who Can Be Charged

Principal actors: founders, incorporators, officers, directors, signatories, promoters, team leads who conceptualized, controlled, or knowingly sold the scheme.
Accomplices/accessories: marketers, uplines, social-media “influencers,” escrow/collection agents, or compliance officers who knew or should have known of the fraud and still materially helped it.
Corporate liability: The corporation/partnership can be charged for SRC violations; individual accountability attaches to officers who consented to or tolerated the illegal acts.

Note: Headcount matters for “syndicated” classification. Identify and document at least five active participants who formed or managed the scheme.

4) Elements You Must Be Ready to Prove

For syndicated swindling (PD 1689)

Estafa (under Art. 315/316) was committed;
By a syndicate — ≥5 persons who formed/managed a group to defraud;
Conspiracy or concerted acts showing common design;
Damage to victims (money/property lost; returns unpaid).

For large-scale swindling (PD 1689)

Estafa was committed;
The offense was committed against the general public (e.g., broad solicitation, multiple unrelated victims, mass advertising/online campaigns);
Multiple victims and substantial aggregate damage;
The public nature of the solicitation/misrepresentations is shown (events, websites, FB pages, influencers, printed materials).

While jurisprudence discusses thresholds, prosecutors generally build “large-scale” by number of complainants, mass-market pitch, and public solicitation evidence. Bring as many victims as practical to the complaint to demonstrate scale.

5) Where to File and Which Office Handles What

Criminal complaint for PD 1689 (estafa qualified): Office of the City/Provincial Prosecutor where any essential element occurred (place of solicitation, payment, execution of contracts, or where victims handed over funds).
SRC administrative/criminal complaint: Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) — Enforcement and Investor Protection Department (EIPD); SEC can recommend prosecution and issue CEASE-AND-DESIST (CDO) or Advisories.
Cyber evidence: PNP-ACG or NBI-CCD may assist with cyber preservation, takedowns, and digital forensics.
Asset freezing/forfeiture: AMLC (upon referral or own motion) when covered persons or banks file STRs/CTRs or when law enforcement elevates the case.

Venue strategy: If victims are scattered nationwide, consolidate via DOJ Task Force/Panel or file where core management operated and major solicitations/payments occurred.

6) Evidence Blueprint (What Wins These Cases)

A. Victim-side documents

Investment contracts, term sheets, “subscription agreements,” promissory notes;
Proof of payments: bank slips, remittance receipts, GCASH records, crypto transfers;
Marketing materials: decks, whitepapers, FB/Telegram posts, videos, screenshots;
Communications: emails, chats, webinars, voice notes;
Account statements / dashboards (before they go offline—screen-capture with metadata);
Demand letters and replies (or silence).

B. Corporate/accused-side documents (obtain via subpoena, search warrants, or cooperating insiders)

Incorporation papers, GIS, board minutes, resolutions, bank KYC files;
Flow of funds: bank statements, inter-account transfers, payouts to insiders;
Commissions/“upline” ledgers;
“Trading” or “mining” wallets showing no real underlying business.

C. Expert and corroborative proof

Forensic accountants/CFEs tracing Ponzi flow;
IT forensics establishing website/app control, server logs, and mass messaging;
SEC certifications (no registration/no secondary license);
AMLC reports (if available) showing layering/withdrawals.

D. Witnesses

Multiple investors from different circles (to show public reach);
Former insiders (whistleblowers) establishing intent and structure;
Bank officers/custodians to authenticate records;
SEC/NBI/PNP officers on surveillance and seizures.

7) Step-by-Step: Building and Filing the Case

Victim intake & triage
- Standardize affidavits (who pitched, where, what was said, when payments made, reliance, damage).
- Assign reference codes per complainant and evidence map (link each exhibit to each element).
Parallel regulatory move
- File with SEC-EIPD for Advisory/CDO and SRC charges; obtain certification of non-registration/no license.
Asset preservation (early)
- Request AMLC freeze (through law enforcement/DOJ) on identified bank/EMI/crypto wallets.
- Consider civil actions with preliminary attachment; seek hold-departure order (HDO)/ILBO via DOJ where appropriate.
Criminal complaint (PD 1689/estafa)
- File verified Joint Complaint-Affidavit with annexes (organized per element).
- Name at least five core actors for syndicated theory; otherwise allege large-scale with multiple complainants and public solicitation proofs.
- Include SRC counts (if filing with DOJ) or reference the SEC case.
Preliminary investigation
- Respondents receive subpoena; they file counter-affidavits and evidence.
- Complainants may file reply; panel resolves probable cause.
- If probable cause for syndicated swindling, expect non-bailable information (subject to judicial determination of strength of evidence).
Filing of information & warrants
- Prosecutor files in RTC; court evaluates judicial probable cause; issues warrants.
- Consider motion for issuance of HDO and asset preservation if not yet in place.
Trial
- Prosecution proves estafa elements, then qualifying circumstances (syndicated or large-scale).
- Expect defenses: mere breach of contract, novatio, we intended to pay, returns paused due to market. Rebut with deceit at inception, use of new investor funds to pay old investors, lavish insider withdrawals, lack of real underlying business.
Judgment & restitution
- On conviction, court imposes enhanced penalties; civil liability (restitution/actual damages) is deemed instituted.
- Coordinate with Sheriff/AMLC/banks to satisfy judgments from frozen assets.

8) Penalties, Bail, and Civil Liability

PD 1689 imposes substantially heavier penalties than ordinary estafa, up to reclusion perpetua (especially for syndicated swindling).
Bail: In syndicated swindling, the offense is non-bailable when the evidence of guilt is strong. Courts hold summary bail hearings on this question.
Fines & restitution: Courts may impose stiff fines; restitution and interest form part of civil liability. Partial refunds do not extinguish criminal liability where deceit/misappropriation is proven.

9) Strategy Notes for Prosecutors and Private Complainants

Charge-stacking: Pair PD 1689 with SRC counts to cover both the fraud and the regulatory angles.
Narrative discipline: Organize the case by themes: (a) deceit at inception; (b) public solicitation; (c) flow of funds; (d) insider enrichment; (e) absence of real business.
Show the “public” aspect: Ads, roadshows, livestreams, affiliate codes, mass chats, victims from unrelated circles.
Conspiracy proof: Board minutes, shared wallets, coordinated scripts, cross-referral payouts, uniform contracts.
Preserve digital evidence early: Hash screenshots, serve preservation letters to platforms/EMIs, secure subscriber and traffic data via proper process.
Coordinate multi-agency: SEC (registration/fraud), AMLC (freezes), NBI/PNP-ACG (forensics), BI (watchlist).
Victim management: Create a claims and evidence portal, keep communications consistent, avoid “side deals” that fracture the case.

10) Common Defenses (and How to Rebut Them)

“It’s just a civil breach.” Rebut with deceit at inception, unrealistic guaranteed returns, fake licenses, Ponzi cashflow.
“We intended to pay; market crashed.” Show pre-existing insolvency, no real trading/mining, use of incoming funds to pay prior investors, lavish personal withdrawals.
“No public solicitation.” Present screenshots/videos, event invitations, referral trees, victims with no prior relationship.
“I was only a marketer.” Prove knowledge and material participation (commissions, scripts, training, knowing false claims).
“Refunds cure the crime.” Partial repayments do not negate consummated estafa; they may mitigate damages, not criminal liability.

11) Timelines, Prescription, and Joinder

Move fast: Seize and freeze early; scammers dissipate assets rapidly.
Prescription: Estafa and PD 1689 qualifications have longer prescriptive periods than light offenses, but do not rely on this—file promptly to avoid factual staleness and asset flight.
Joinder/Consolidation: Multiple victims may jointly file; prosecutors may consolidate related complaints to demonstrate scale and efficiency.

12) Civil Recovery Tracks (Parallel to Criminal)

Civil action deemed instituted with the criminal case (unless waived/reserved).
Independent civil action for damages (contract/tort) may be filed, mindful of prejudicial questions and coordination with criminal proceedings.
Provisional remedies: Preliminary attachment, injunction, receivership (where appropriate).
Claims against officers personally: plead bad faith, gross negligence, or deceit; consider piercing the corporate veil.

13) Tactical Checklists

A. Complaint-Filing Packet

Joint complaint-affidavit (victims) + annex matrix per element;
SEC certifications (no registration/secondary license; advisory/CDO);
Payment proofs; marketing materials; communications;
Corporate papers of respondents;
Flow-of-funds chart;
List of at least five core conspirators (for syndicated theory);
List of numerous unrelated victims (for large-scale theory).

B. Early Relief

Motions/requests for: AMLC freeze, DOJ HDO/ILBO, search warrants (digital/financial), data preservation letters.

C. Trial Prep

Custodian witnesses (banks, telcos, platforms);
Expert reports (forensic accounting/IT);
Demonstratives (timeline of solicitations, Sankey of fund flows, victim map).

14) Frequently Asked Questions

Is PD 1689 a separate crime? It qualifies estafa/swindling and enhances penalties; the charge is framed as estafa qualified by PD 1689 (syndicated/large-scale).

Do I need exactly five accused for “syndicated”? Document at least five who formed or managed the group and acted in concert. If fewer, proceed on large-scale (public) or plain estafa + SRC counts.

Can we file even if we signed “investment risk” disclaimers? Yes. Disclaimers do not shield deceit or misappropriation.

What if most solicitations were online? Preserve digital trails; coordinate with ACG/NBI; cyber-qualified offenses may apply.

Will partial refunds bar the case? No. They may reduce civil liability but do not negate the crime if deceit/misappropriation is proven.

15) Bottom Line

For investment scams in the Philippines, PD 1689 is the primary tool to elevate estafa into a severe, potentially non-bailable offense when syndicated or large-scale. Build the case on clear deceit, public solicitation, multiple victims, and a forensic trail of funds. Pair it with SRC violations and AMLA measures to stop the bleeding, lock assets, and maximize recovery—while pushing the criminal case to conviction and restitution.

This guide provides general information and is not a substitute for case-specific legal advice.