Confiscation of Online Gambling Winnings in the Philippines: A Legal Guide (updated 7 July 2025)
1. Conceptual frame
Confiscation (sometimes called forfeiture) is the State’s permanent taking of money, property or “proceeds and instruments” connected with an offense. In Philippine law it arises in three main settings:
| Legal track | Key statutes | Typical venue | Nature of action |
|---|---|---|---|
| Criminal | Revised Penal Code (RPC) Art. 45; P.D. 1602 (illegal gambling) as amended by R.A. 9287 | Regional Trial Court (RTC) in the criminal case | Penalty ancillary to conviction—automatic upon judgment |
| Civil/Asset forfeiture | R.A. 9160 (Anti-Money Laundering Act) as amended, esp. R.A. 10927 (casino coverage) | Court of Appeals (CA) for forfeiture; Court of Appeals/RTC for freeze | In rem—property, not the person, is sued; standard: preponderance |
| Administrative/licensing | P.D. 1869 & R.A. 9487 (PAGCOR charter); PAGCOR & AMLC rules; R.A. 11590 (POGO tax/regulation) | PAGCOR or BIR for licensed operators | Penalties up to seizure of security deposits, suspension, closure |
Any single transaction can trigger more than one track (e.g., an unlicensed online cockfighting site raided by police can face criminal cases; AMLC may freeze deposited winnings; PAGCOR can forfeit the operator’s bond).
2. What counts as “online gambling” and who regulates it?
PAGCOR‐licensed domestic e-gaming
- Live‐dealer or RNG casino platforms, e-bingo, sports betting, e-sabong (until banned in 2022), etc.; governed by PAGCOR charter (P.D. 1869 as amended) & implementing rules.
- Winnings are lawful; no confiscation unless linked to a separate offense (e.g., money-laundering, cheating).
Philippine Offshore Gaming Operators (POGOs)
- Authorized to take bets from foreigners outside Philippine jurisdiction (PAGCOR 2016 POGO rules, updated 2024).
- Resident aliens and Filipinos are barred from betting; if they do, bets and winnings are contraband under the license terms and may be seized by PAGCOR and/or AMLC.
Unlicensed or prohibited sites
- Anything not covered above, including foreign websites accessed without Philippine authorization, or e-sabong after Executive Order 9 (28 December 2022) banning it outright.
- Every peso staked or won is deemed the proceeds and instrument of illegal gambling—subject to confiscation under P.D. 1602 and RPC Art. 45.
3. Criminal basis for confiscating illegal online winnings
| Provision | What it says | Practical effect on winnings |
|---|---|---|
| Art. 45, RPC | “Every penalty imposed for the commission of a felony shall carry with it the forfeiture of the proceeds of the crime and the instruments or tools with which it was committed.” | Upon conviction, the court’s judgment must order forfeiture of the bets and payouts. |
| Sec. 5, P.D. 1602 (as amended by R.A. 9287) | Courts “shall order the confiscation and forfeiture of all the paraphernalia and money forfeited in favor of the government.” | Police may seize funds during a raid; definitive ownership transfers only after final judgment. |
| Sec. 32, Cybercrime Prevention Act (R.A. 10175) | Allows confiscation of “proceeds or gains obtained through cybercrime,” which includes online illegal gambling per Sec. 4(b)(5). | Supplements Art. 45 for internet-based offenses, enabling digital wallet seizure. |
Key point: No conviction, no permanent confiscation—except when AMLA’s civil forfeiture applies (see next section).
4. Anti-Money Laundering pathway
Covered persons expanded R.A. 10927 (2017) added “casinos, including internet or ship-based” as AMLA covered persons. All PAGCOR-licensed operators—and by extension, significant offshore platforms that route funds through local banks, e-wallets, or junket agents—must file Suspicious Transaction Reports (STRs).
Definition of unlawful activity – “Plunder or malversation of public funds” etc. already listed. – Section 3(i)(7) includes felonies involving illegal gambling (P.D. 1602) → winnings traceable to such acts are proceeds of crime.
Freezing & forfeiture
- 30-day ex-parte freeze by Court of Appeals on AMLC petition (Sec. 10).
- Civil forfeiture action must be filed within next 30 days; CA’s judgment can permanently vest seized assets in the State (Sec. 11).
- Standard is preponderance of evidence—no criminal conviction required.
Illustration: 2023 case AMLC v. Zhao et al. (CA-EF No. 511) froze ₱180 million in GCash wallets linked to an unlicensed e-sabong ring; CA ordered forfeiture in 2024 despite parallel criminal case still pending.
5. Tax law & revenue confiscation
| Statute | Mechanism | Effect if non-compliant |
|---|---|---|
| NIRC, Sec. 24(B)(1) | 20 % final tax on prizes/winnings > ₱10,000 from legal gaming. | BIR can issue warrants of distraint/levy; unpaid tax does not invalidate ownership of the remainder. |
| R.A. 11590 (POGO Tax Law, 2021) | 5 % gaming tax on gross win; 25 % withholding on alien employees’ salaries; security deposit required. | PAGCOR may forfeit the deposit and ban operator; BIR may padlock premises; still an administrative forfeiture, separate from criminal AML track. |
Tax assessments themselves do not confiscate winnings; they create liens. Confiscation happens only when the revenue agency resorts to levy or when PAGCOR calls on a bond.
6. Due-process safeguards
Constitutional property clause (Art. III, Sec. 1) – no person may be deprived of property without due process of law.
Specific safeguards
- Criminal forfeiture requires final judgment; accused can appeal up to the Supreme Court.
- AMLA freeze requires probable cause; forfeiture requires substantial evidence and CA decision reviewable by SC.
- PAGCOR administrative seizures are appealable to the Office of the President and courts on certiorari.
Failure to observe these steps voids the confiscation (e.g., People v. Dizon, G.R. No. 147675, 2004—trial court ordered confiscation without identifying money as gambling proceeds; SC reversed).
7. Selected jurisprudence & agency issuances
| Case / Issuance | Year | Holding / Relevance |
|---|---|---|
| People v. Rosauro, G.R. L-19468 | 1966 | Affirmed forfeiture of gambling paraphernalia under Art. 45. |
| People v. Yabut, G.R. L-21443 | 1968 | Money found on “sakla” (card) table properly forfeited as proceeds. |
| Republic v. Sandiganbayan (Civil Forf. case) | 2003 | Clarified in rem nature of civil forfeiture; guides AMLA practice. |
| AMLC Reg. A, B-1, B-2 | 2018–2024 | Implement casino STR thresholds; detail e-wallet freeze procedures. |
| Executive Order 9 | 2022 | Banned e-sabong; directed PNP and LGUs to seize betting proceeds. |
| BIR Revenue Reg. 20-2021 | 2021 | Implements R.A. 11590; authorises forfeiture of POGO security deposits for tax deficiency. |
8. Cross-border & technology issues
- Offshore wallets & crypto – AMLC may coordinate with BSP-licensed Virtual Asset Service Providers (VASPs); Sec. 7 of BSP Circular 1108 (2021) lets BSP freeze assets on AMLC request.
- Extraterritorial bets – Under Article 2, RPC applies if any acts occur in Philippine territory (e.g., server located in Pasig); otherwise mutual legal assistance treaties (MLATs) and Interpol channels are used.
- Digital evidence – Rule on Cybercrime Warrants (A.M. No. 17-11-03-SC, 2018) lets prosecutors secure preservation and disclosure orders to trace winnings in real time.
9. Enforcement challenges
- Multiplicity of regulators – PAGCOR, CEZA, Aurora Pacific Economic Zone, Cagayan freeport, LGUs, AMLC, BIR; coordination gaps slow proceedings.
- Layering & “chip-dumping” – Players disguise winnings as legitimate transfers; proactive casino STR analysis is critical.
- Asset recovery vs. player protection – Unlicensed sites often collapse before final judgment, making recovery moot; proposed Senate Bill 2311 (Pending) seeks provisional asset preservation within 48 hours of police raids.
10. Practical compliance pointers
For operators
- Secure PAGCOR license, register with AMLC, file STRs over ₱5 million single wins (or lower if suspicious).
- Maintain a security deposit equal to 2-months gross gaming revenue (PAGCOR 2024 Rules); expect forfeiture on first major violation.
For players
- Verify the site’s PAGCOR or POGO accreditation number; winnings from unaccredited sites can be seized and criminal charges filed.
- Declare large legitimate wins (> ₱10,000) for 20 % withholding; keep official receipts to rebut future forfeiture.
For law-enforcement counsel
- Anchor charges on both P.D. 1602 (substantive offense) and AMLA (asset freeze) to avoid dissipation.
- Use cybercrime warrants to freeze e-wallets before they convert to crypto.
11. Outlook
Debate continues in Congress: some bills seek an outright ban on POGOs citing reputational and enforcement costs; others propose stricter AML thresholds but preserve tax revenue. Whichever path is taken, confiscation will remain central—both as punishment and as a deterrent—so long as illegal online gambling persists.
Key take-away: In the Philippines, lawfulness of the game governs the fate of the winnings. Bet on or operate an unlicensed platform and the State—through criminal courts, AMLA forfeiture, or administrative mechanisms—can, and often will, confiscate every peso won, together with the assets used to facilitate the bet.