Published May 22, 2026 · By Editorial Team · 8 min read

One Year After the POGO Ban: Where Did the Offshore Operators Go?

The Philippines' Philippine Offshore Gaming Operator (POGO) sector formally ceased operations on December 31, 2024 following President Ferdinand Marcos Jr.'s July 2024 State of the Nation Address ban. Sixteen months after the deadline, regional regulators in Cambodia, Myanmar's border zones, the United Arab Emirates and Anjouan have absorbed differential shares of the displaced operations, with mixed compliance outcomes documented across the receiving jurisdictions.

What happened

The Philippine Amusement and Gaming Corporation (PAGCOR) had operated the POGO licence framework since 2016, authorising offshore-facing online gambling operators headquartered in the Philippines but prohibited from serving Philippine residents. At peak in 2019, the sector employed approximately 119,000 workers — predominantly Chinese nationals — across roughly 60 licensed operators and over 200 service providers, generating approximately ₱7.2 billion annually in licence fees and contributing materially to commercial real estate demand in Manila's Pasay, Bonifacio Global City and Parañaque districts.

The sector's reputation deteriorated through 2020 to 2024 alongside repeated scandals: alleged human-trafficking operations using POGO frontage, large-scale tax-evasion findings, links to Chinese organised crime groups, and the high-profile 2024 arrest of dismissed Bamban mayor Alice Guo on charges connected to POGO-linked properties.

President Marcos's July 22, 2024 SONA announced a complete POGO ban with a December 31, 2024 wind-down deadline. PAGCOR began revoking licences in stages through Q3 and Q4 2024. By the deadline, all 41 remaining licensed POGOs had been deactivated, with PAGCOR conducting compliance audits on closure procedures, employee repatriation and asset disposition through Q1 2025.

Displaced operators relocated through several documented patterns. Department of Justice estimates from March 2025 suggested approximately 60% of operations moved to Cambodia (particularly Sihanoukville and Bavet), 15% to Myanmar's Shan State border zones with Thailand and China (Tachileik, Myawaddy, Kokang region), 10% to the UAE (Dubai, Ras Al Khaimah), 5% to Macau-adjacent jurisdictions including Saipan and several relocated administratively to Anjouan or Comoros for licensing while operating teams remained in Southeast Asian locations.

Why it matters

The POGO sector served as the principal regulated channel for online gambling operations targeting Chinese-speaking customers from a Southeast Asian base. China's prohibition on online gambling means operators cannot serve mainland Chinese players from any licensed jurisdiction within China; the offshore-facing model required jurisdictions willing to host the operations without taking responsibility for end-user impact in China. The Philippines filled that role from 2016 to 2024.

Cambodia, the principal post-POGO host jurisdiction, has limited regulatory capacity to supervise the relocated operations. The country's gambling regulatory framework, governed by the Commercial Gambling Management Law of 2020 and overseen by the General Commercial Gambling Department under the Ministry of Economy and Finance, has issued licences principally to land-based casino operators in border-zone resorts. Online-facing operations have continued largely without explicit licensing or with light-touch supervision.

The human-trafficking dimension that contributed to the Philippine ban has not improved post-relocation. The United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) released an updated regional report in February 2026 documenting continued forced-labour conditions in Cambodian and Myanmar-border online gambling and scam operations, estimating that approximately 220,000 workers in the region are subject to coercive conditions. Many of these workers were transferred from Philippine POGOs to the new host locations.

The UAE's emerging share is structurally different. Dubai's Department of Economy and Tourism has not licensed online gambling operations, but the city has become a residence-of-convenience location for senior management of relocated operations. The day-to-day operating teams remain in Cambodia, Myanmar border zones or remote-work arrangements. This residence-licensing geographic separation is increasingly visible in regional regulatory mapping.

For the Philippine economy, the POGO closure has had measurable but absorbable impact. The Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas estimated GDP contribution lost at approximately 0.4% annually. Commercial real estate vacancy rates in affected Manila districts rose from approximately 12% in 2023 to approximately 24% by Q4 2025, though banking-sector loan-quality data has not deteriorated materially.

Who is affected

The principal affected parties are the displaced workers. Filipino employees of POGO operations, approximately 25,000 by PAGCOR's 2023 reporting, faced unemployment and re-employment in less remunerative sectors. The Chinese national workforce, approximately 60,000 to 80,000 by various estimates, either repatriated to China or relocated to the receiving jurisdictions, often under conditions worse than those they had at Philippine sites.

Chinese-facing online gambling players, predominantly residents of mainland China accessing offshore operations through VPN circumvention, have continued to access services with marginal supply disruption. The operational continuity of the underlying gambling product across the relocations indicates that customer demand has been served continuously, with branding and infrastructure transferred rather than discontinued.

Regional regulators in Cambodia, Myanmar (including the central government and the de facto authorities in Shan State), and Anjouan face increased regulatory scrutiny. The Financial Action Task Force (FATF) reviewed Cambodia's gambling sector in its February 2026 plenary, with concerns raised about AML supervision of the relocated operations. Anjouan, which has issued thousands of operator licences under its ALCB framework, faces parallel scrutiny from international regulatory coordination bodies.

Crypto-casino operators with no historical Philippine connection are largely unaffected. The POGO sector served Chinese-speaking sports betting and live-dealer offerings to mainland customers; crypto-native casinos serving global English/Spanish/Portuguese/Russian-speaking audiences with crypto deposits had limited overlap. Operators including Stake, BC.Game, Rollbit and Roobet operated through Curacao licensing throughout the POGO era and continue to do so without operational impact from the closure.

The Philippine domestic gambling market, regulated separately under PAGCOR's domestic e-Casino licensing introduced in 2022, has continued to expand. Domestic licensees including Bingo Plus, Mega Sportsworld, and several land-based casino-affiliated operators have grown share among Philippine residents during the POGO-closure period.

What players should do

Players from China seeking offshore gambling access face material risk in the post-POGO environment. The Cambodia, Myanmar-border and UAE-residence-Anjouan-licence operations carry weaker dispute-resolution infrastructure than the former Philippine licensees, which were at least supervised by PAGCOR with formal complaint channels. Players should not assume that operations carrying former-POGO branding or staff continuity offer equivalent recourse.

Verification of operator licensing is more difficult in the relocated environment. Anjouan-licensed operators publish ALCB credentials but the ALCB has limited public-facing licensee register infrastructure. Players considering operators with Anjouan licensing should request specific licence numbers and verify through the limited available register access; many self-declared Anjouan-licensed operators are not in fact registered.

Players with funds held at former POGO-licensed operators that wound down during 2024 should have completed withdrawals before December 31, 2024. Operators that failed to return player balances during the wind-down period have been subject to PAGCOR complaint processing, with mixed recovery outcomes. Players still pursuing recovery should file with PAGCOR's complaints unit and with the relevant criminal authorities if fraud is suspected.

Players in the Philippines accessing domestic gambling services should use PAGCOR-licensed operators. The domestic licensee list is published on PAGCOR's website with credential numbers; players can verify legitimacy directly. Offshore operators not licensed for Philippine market service have always been technically illegal for Philippine players and remain so.

Conclusion

The POGO closure was a domestic political success that displaced rather than resolved the underlying offshore gambling industry. The principal beneficiaries of the displacement have been Cambodia and the Myanmar border zones, both with weaker regulatory infrastructure than the Philippines and ongoing human-rights concerns. The structural demand for offshore-facing gambling services to Chinese-speaking customers continues unabated; only the host geography has changed. For crypto-casino players outside the Chinese-facing segment, the POGO aftermath has had limited direct impact, but the regional regulatory environment for gambling licensing has become more fragmented and more difficult to assess at operator-by-operator level.