The Philippines’ anti-graft court has refused to dismiss criminal charges against gambling investor Jack Lam, allowing proceedings to continue in connection with an alleged PHP50 million bribery scheme involving senior immigration officials. The ruling marks another development in a long-running case linked to events dating back to 2016.

In a resolution issued by the Sandiganbayan’s Sixth Division, judges determined that the information filed against Lam for violating Presidential Decree No. 46 remains valid. The law prohibits both public officials from receiving and private individuals from giving gifts or benefits in relation to official duties. Lam had sought to quash the charges, arguing that the case lacked sufficient factual basis.

Court Finds Charges Sufficient to Proceed

Lam’s legal team pointed to earlier developments involving his co-accused, former Bureau of Immigration deputy commissioners Al Argosino and Michael Robles. Charges against the two officials under the same decree were dropped in 2021, after the court concluded that pursuing those counts alongside plunder convictions would violate protections against double jeopardy.

However, the court ruled that this reasoning does not apply to Lam. As reported by Daily Tribune, the resolution stated: “Unlike accused Argosino and Robles, accused Lam is not, at the same time, charged with, and found guilty of, Direct Bribery and/or Plunder.”

Judges also emphasized that, at this stage of proceedings, prosecutors are only required to allege the acts that constitute an offense. The court found that the filed information met that requirement, rejecting Lam’s claim that there were no specific allegations tying him to the alleged wrongdoing.

The ruling reinforces the threshold applied during early phases of criminal proceedings, where courts assess the sufficiency of accusations rather than the strength of evidence.

Allegations Linked to 2016 Immigration Incident

The case centers on an alleged payment made in November 2016, when Lam, through intermediary Wenceslao Sombero Jr., reportedly handed PHP50 million to Argosino and Robles. Authorities claim the funds were intended to secure the release of more than 1,300 Chinese nationals who had been detained for illegal employment at Fontana Leisure Park and Casino in Pampanga.

Argosino and Robles were later convicted of plunder and graft and received lengthy prison sentences. At least PHP30 million linked to the case was returned to the Department of Justice.

Lam has denied direct involvement, arguing that he is not a public official and did not personally transact with the immigration officials. The court rejected these arguments for purposes of dismissing the case, stating that the allegations outlined in the information sufficiently describe acts that could constitute a violation of the law.

The resolution also included a passage noting: “Clearly, the Information alleges acts constituting Violation of Presidential Decree No. 46, contrary to accused Lam’s insistence that there is no specific allegation as to his participation.”

Hold Order Remains in Place

In addition to denying the motion to dismiss, the court upheld a hold departure order against Lam, preventing him from leaving the Philippines while the case remains active. Prosecutors had described him as a “fugitive from justice,” citing reports that he is currently in Hong Kong.

The court declined to formally adopt that classification, pointing to a lack of evidence establishing when Lam left the country or whether he was aware of the charges at the time. Despite this, the restriction on his travel remains in effect.

Lam is associated with Hong Kong-listed Jimei International Entertainment Group Ltd., which has operated gaming and resort assets, including Fontana. Operations at the Fontana Resort and Country Club were suspended indefinitely in early 2025 by Clark authorities, reflecting continued scrutiny surrounding the property.

With the motion to quash denied, the case will proceed to the next stages of litigation. The court’s ruling ensures that prosecutors can continue presenting their case, while Lam will have the opportunity to respond as proceedings develop.