1) The recurring fact pattern

A person promotes an “investment platform” (often online), posts testimonials, recruits investors, organizes seminars, or introduces friends and relatives. Later, the platform collapses and is exposed as a scam (often a Ponzi-type operation). Victims then ask: Can the promoter be sued or prosecuted, even if the promoter claims they were also “just an investor” or “only introduced people”?

In Philippine law, exposure can arise on three major tracks:

Criminal liability (most commonly Estafa under the Revised Penal Code; sometimes Securities Regulation Code violations; sometimes Cybercrime angles if committed online).
Civil liability (return of money/damages; civil liability that may be impliedly instituted with the criminal case; or a separate civil case).
Regulatory/administrative liability (SEC enforcement; cease-and-desist; possible disqualification or penalties under securities laws; sometimes local licensing issues).

This article focuses on Estafa and civil claims, with practical links to securities concepts because many “investment platform scams” are also illegal securities solicitations.

2) Estafa basics in this context

2.1 What is Estafa?

Estafa is fraud punished under Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC). In investment-scam scenarios, prosecutors usually anchor charges on:

Article 315(2)(a) – Estafa by false pretenses or fraudulent acts (deceit used to obtain money).
Article 315(1)(b) – Estafa by misappropriation or conversion (money received “in trust,” “on commission,” or for a specific purpose, then diverted or not accounted for).
Article 315(3) – Estafa by other means (less common for platform promotions but possible depending on mechanics).

Which paragraph applies depends on how money was received and what representations were made.

2.2 Typical prosecution theory against promoters

For promoters, the most common theory is 315(2)(a) (deceit).

Prosecution usually tries to show:

False representation or fraudulent act: e.g., guaranteed high returns, “licensed” claims, fake trading/AI story, “insured,” “risk-free,” false claims about SEC registration, fake endorsements, fabricated profit screenshots.
Deceit (dolo) at or before the transaction: the misrepresentation induced the victim to part with money.
Damage or prejudice: the victim lost money or suffered measurable harm.
Causal link: victim invested because of the promoter’s representations.

Against a promoter, the key fight is often intent/knowledge: did the promoter know (or should they have known) it was fraudulent, or did they themselves deceive investors?

3) Promoter roles and why they matter

Courts and prosecutors distinguish, in practice, among several promoter profiles. Exposure varies with facts.

3.1 “Mere introducer” (low involvement)

Shared a link once, no assurances, no collection of money, no commissions, no “guaranteed returns” talk.
If truly minimal and with no deceit, criminal exposure is lower.
Civil exposure can still arise if the act is proven wrongful and causative (but harder).

3.2 “Active recruiter/marketer” (moderate to high exposure)

Conducted presentations, posted marketing claims, reassured investors, answered questions, claimed legitimacy.
Even if they did not physically hold the money, deceit can be attributed if they induced investment through misrepresentations.

3.3 “Collector/receiver of funds” (very high exposure)

Received cash or bank transfers, issued receipts, acted as “account manager,” funneled funds to operators.
This can support not only 315(2)(a) but also theories closer to misappropriation depending on how funds were entrusted and what authority existed.

3.4 “Team leader / organizer / quasi-officer” (very high exposure)

Managed groups, handled payouts, trained recruiters, enforced scripts, set compensation structures.
Stronger case for conspiracy and principal liability.

4) Conspiracy and accomplice liability: how “promoters” get pulled in

4.1 Conspiracy

Under Philippine criminal law, if conspiracy is proven, the act of one is the act of all; each conspirator may be treated as a principal. Conspiracy is usually inferred from concert of action and community of design—coordinated steps toward defrauding investors.

Evidence that tends to support conspiracy (fact-driven):

Coordinated scripts and uniform misrepresentations across recruiters.
Structured referral networks with commissions.
Handling of investor lists and payout schedules.
Direct communications with operators about “damage control,” “holding lines,” or “keeping investors calm.”
Continued recruitment even after red flags (withdrawal freezes, repeated excuses, SEC advisories).

4.2 Accomplice

Even without full conspiracy, a promoter may be considered an accomplice if they cooperated in the execution by previous or simultaneous acts, with knowledge of the criminal design, but without being a principal mover.

In practice, promoters’ defenses often aim to reduce exposure from “principal by conspiracy” to (at worst) “accomplice,” or to no criminal liability at all.

5) The central battleground: knowledge, intent, and “good faith”

5.1 “I was also a victim” is not automatically a shield

Being defrauded does not automatically negate liability if the promoter also committed deceit or knowingly participated. However, being a bona fide victim can support good faith.

5.2 Good faith as a defense

Good faith (lack of intent to defraud) can negate the deceit element required for 315(2)(a). But good faith is factual and often tested against:

Did you make claims you could not verify (e.g., “SEC registered,” “guaranteed,” “no risk”)?
Did you earn commissions or benefits tied to recruitment?
Did you continue recruiting after major warning signs?
Did you suppress negative information or instruct investors to “keep quiet”?
Did you pressure people to reinvest or discourage withdrawals?

5.3 Reckless promotion vs criminal fraud

Criminal estafa generally requires deceit. Mere negligence or poor judgment is not always estafa. But repeated, confident assertions of legitimacy and returns—especially when false—can be treated as deceit even if the promoter claims they “believed” them.

A promoter’s risk rises when they:

Give assurances (guaranteed ROI, fixed returns, “sure win”).
Claim authority (“official representative,” “licensed broker”).
Fabricate or embellish evidence (fake certificates, edited screenshots).
Actively solicit money and guide victims through transfers.
Enjoy material gain from the recruitment.

6) Civil liability: what victims can recover and from whom

6.1 Civil liability impliedly instituted with the criminal case

When estafa is filed, the civil action for recovery is generally impliedly instituted unless the offended party waives, reserves, or separately files it. Victims may seek:

Restitution (return of principal).
Reparation (compensation for the damage).
Indemnification for consequential damages.

6.2 Civil liability of persons criminally liable

If a promoter is convicted (as principal/accomplice), civil liability typically follows. Civil liability can be solidary among multiple accused depending on findings, exposing each to the full amount subject to rules on apportionment.

6.3 Separate civil actions (even without criminal conviction in some scenarios)

Victims may pursue civil claims such as:

Quasi-delict (fault/negligence causing damage) where applicable.
Fraud and damages under the Civil Code (vitiated consent, deceit).
Unjust enrichment (money received without legal ground).
Rescission/annulment of contracts (if a contract is identifiable).
Collection of sum of money (especially if receipts, acknowledgments, or promissory undertakings exist).

The exact cause of action depends on what can be proven and what documents exist.

6.4 If the promoter never touched the money, can they still be civilly liable?

Yes, depending on proof of wrongful inducement and causation. Civil liability is not limited to the person who physically received the funds. If a promoter’s actionable deceit caused the loss, they may be held liable, but the evidentiary burden is heavier.

6.5 Damages commonly claimed

Actual damages: the invested amounts, documented losses.
Moral damages: possible where fraud caused mental anguish, social humiliation, etc. (fact-dependent; courts scrutinize).
Exemplary damages: may be awarded when the act is wanton, fraudulent, or malevolent, to deter similar conduct.
Attorney’s fees and litigation expenses: possible under specific circumstances.

7) The promoter’s civil exposure even if criminal case is weak

It is possible for a criminal case to fail (e.g., reasonable doubt on deceit or identity), yet civil liability may still be found under a lower evidentiary threshold in certain civil actions, or via independent civil causes (depending on how the case is structured and what relief is sought).

That said, civil cases still require proof—especially of (a) wrongful act, (b) causation, and (c) quantifiable damage.

8) Securities overlay (often inseparable in “investment platform” scams)

Even if the prompt is estafa/civil, promoters should understand the common regulatory character of these schemes:

Many “platform investments” are treated as securities (investment contracts) when people invest money in a common enterprise with expectation of profits primarily from efforts of others.
Offering/selling securities to the public without proper registration/authority triggers liability under securities regulation (SEC actions; possible criminal prosecutions under securities laws).

In practice:

SEC advisories and lack of registration can be used by prosecutors as circumstantial evidence that promoters should have known they were pushing an illegitimate investment.
Promoters who act as “agents” or “salesmen” for unregistered securities may be targeted by regulators and complainants.

This does not automatically equal estafa, but it can strengthen narratives of deceit, particularly when promoters asserted “legal/registered” status.

9) Common defenses and how they are assessed

9.1 “I did not promise anything; I only shared information.”

Works best when consistent with evidence: no screenshots, no chat logs of guarantees, no seminars, no pressure tactics, no commissions.

9.2 “All representations came from the company; I just repeated them.”

Repeating false claims can still be deceit if you affirmed them to induce investment—especially if you added assurances, vouched personally, or claimed you verified them.

9.3 “I disclosed risks / told them to do their own research.”

Helpful, but it must be credible and contemporaneous. Boilerplate disclaimers may not overcome strong evidence of active deception.

9.4 “I returned some money / helped victims withdraw.”

Partial returns can reduce damages and may support good faith, but do not automatically extinguish criminal liability if deceit and damage occurred.

9.5 “No damage because they received payouts earlier.”

Even if victims received some payouts, they can still suffer net loss; and early payouts can be characteristic of Ponzi operations. Damage is assessed on the overall prejudice.

10) Evidence that usually decides promoter liability

10.1 For complainants (victims)

Chat messages, group chats, voice notes.
Marketing posts: guarantees, legitimacy claims, “SEC registered.”
Proof of money transfers and who instructed the transfer.
Referral links and commission records.
Seminar photos, attendance lists, presentation slides.
Admissions: “we need new investors to pay withdrawals,” “just hold,” “don’t report.”

10.2 For promoters (to defend)

Proof of genuine belief: due diligence steps, requests for documents, inquiries, warnings issued to investors when problems arose.
Proof you did not profit (or that payouts were mere ROI not commissions)—though this is often contested.
Messages showing you discouraged investing or encouraged independent verification.
Evidence you stopped promoting when red flags emerged.
Proof you too lost money and actively sought recovery (careful: not a complete defense, but relevant to intent).

Digital evidence is pivotal; authenticity, context, and continuity matter.

11) Procedure and practical pathways victims use

Complaints filed with law enforcement/prosecutor for estafa; sometimes bundled with other charges.
SEC complaints or reliance on SEC advisories.
Civil actions for recovery and damages.
Asset tracing and provisional remedies (where available and justified), though success depends on finding attachable assets and meeting legal standards.

For promoters, early exposure often comes from being named as a “recruiter,” “upline,” “team leader,” or “agent” in affidavits and group complaints.

12) Risk factors that turn “promotion” into high legal exposure

A promoter’s risk of estafa and civil liability climbs sharply when they:

Used deceitful language: “guaranteed,” “sure,” “no risk,” “secured,” “legal,” “registered,” “licensed.”
Targeted trust-based relationships (friends/family/church groups) and leveraged credibility.
Collected or routed money, or instructed precise transfer steps.
Earned recruitment-based compensation.
Continued pushing after withdrawal issues or warnings.
Assisted in concealment: deleting messages, coaching investors what to say, discouraging reports.

13) Civil settlement and compromise: what it does and doesn’t do

In estafa cases, settlement may mitigate practical outcomes, but criminal prosecution is not purely private; whether compromise ends the criminal case depends on legal posture and prosecutorial/court discretion. Civil settlement can reduce damages and sometimes affects complainant participation, but it is not an automatic erase-button for criminal liability.

14) Promoter best practices (risk reduction and ethical handling after collapse)

When a platform shows signs of being a scam, actions that reduce legal exposure (and are simply the right thing to do) include:

Stop all promotion immediately.
Preserve records (do not delete messages; deletion can look like concealment).
Disclose known issues to investors promptly and accurately.
Do not make new promises (“it will be paid next week”) without verified basis.
Document your own losses and steps taken to verify and to recover funds.
Avoid acting as a collection point for “recovery fees” or “verification fees,” which can create a new wave of liability.

15) Key takeaways

Promoting a platform that becomes a scam can lead to Estafa charges if the promoter’s conduct involved deceit that induced investors to part with money, or if the promoter participated in a fraudulent scheme through conspiracy or cooperation.
A promoter can face civil claims even if they did not physically receive funds, but liability hinges on wrongful inducement and causation supported by evidence.
The strongest cases against promoters typically involve guarantees, false legitimacy claims, recruitment commissions, continued promotion after red flags, and coordinated actions with operators.
The strongest defenses rely on credible proof of good faith, limited role, lack of misrepresentation, and prompt cessation/disclosure once problems emerged.