Coins.ph BSP License Under Scrutiny Over Offshore Gambling Links

Coins.ph, one of the Philippines' largest crypto exchanges, is contesting reports that its Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP) license could be revoked following allegations that transactions linked to offshore gambling operators passed through its platform. The exchange insists its license remains intact and user funds are secure, but the BSP has already moved: incoming InstaPay and PESONet transfers to DCPay Philippines, the entity running Coins.ph's peso e-wallet, have been restricted under a central bank Monetary Board resolution. For accounting firms, auditors, and CFOs with Philippine crypto exposures, the episode is a sharp reminder that AML and licensing failures at a counterparty can freeze operational rails with almost no notice. Robust crypto compliance reporting and counterparty due-diligence workflows are no longer optional in this environment.

What Has Actually Happened

The situation has two distinct regulatory threads that are worth separating carefully, because they affect different legal entities and different license types.

The BSP payment restrictions

The BSP imposed restrictions on incoming InstaPay and PESONet transfers directed at DCPay Philippines under Monetary Board Resolution No. 839. DCPay holds an electronic money issuer (EMI) license and is responsible for Coins.ph's peso e-wallet and cash-in infrastructure. As a direct result, cash-in services and QRPh collection functionality were temporarily suspended on the platform. QRPh is the BSP's national QR payment standard, so the restriction had a meaningful effect on everyday peso on-ramps.

The crypto services entity is separate

Betur Inc., a distinct legal entity, holds the virtual asset service provider (VASP) license that covers Coins.ph's crypto asset exchange activities. The BSP's restrictions reportedly targeted DCPay's payment operations rather than Betur's crypto services. Crypto trading, cash-outs, bill payments, and merchant QRPh payments reportedly remained available throughout. This structural separation matters enormously from both a legal and an accounting standpoint: two licenses, two regulated entities, and a restriction on one does not automatically disable the other.

The offshore gambling allegation

Reports surfaced that the restrictions were connected to transactions allegedly involving offshore gaming or gambling operators, a category the BSP has been actively monitoring. In 2025, the central bank directed supervised financial institutions to remove links providing access to gambling websites from their payment applications. The BSP has not publicly linked that earlier directive to the current Coins.ph restrictions, and as of publication it had not responded to Cointelegraph's request for comment beyond saying it would look into the inquiry.

Coins.ph's Official Position

The exchange issued a firm denial. In a statement shared with Cointelegraph, Coins.ph said it "firmly denies any claim that it knowingly serves offshore gaming or gambling operators" and confirmed that customer screening and transaction monitoring are conducted in line with BSP requirements. A spokesperson added that the exchange does not accept or permit such operators on its platform.

What the company did not say

Notably, Coins.ph did not directly confirm or deny whether transactions linked to offshore gambling had in fact been processed through its systems. The distinction between knowingly serving an operator and having such transactions pass through undetected is legally and regulatorily significant. An earlier statement also acknowledged that the BSP had instructed the exchange to strengthen its internal controls, which implies the regulator identified at least some deficiency, even if the exchange disputes the characterisation of the underlying activity.

Regulatory Context: BSP's VASP Framework

The Philippines established a VASP licensing regime under BSP Circular No. 1108 (2021), placing crypto asset service providers under anti-money laundering obligations equivalent to those applied to banks and EMIs. Licensed VASPs must implement customer due diligence, transaction monitoring, and suspicious transaction reporting under the Anti-Money Laundering Act and its implementing regulations. Offshore gambling is a highly sensitive category given the Philippines' own regulatory history with Philippine Offshore Gaming Operators (POGOs), many of which have been associated with financial crime concerns. Any suggestion that payment rails are being used to serve those operators triggers heightened regulatory scrutiny almost automatically.

Monetary Board authority

The Monetary Board, the BSP's governing body, has broad authority to impose corrective measures on supervised institutions, including payment restrictions, license suspension, and revocation. A resolution restricting DCPay's incoming transfers is a formal supervisory action, not an informal warning. That matters for counterparties assessing the severity of the situation.

Accounting and Audit Implications

For accounting firms advising Philippine crypto businesses, and for CFOs carrying digital asset positions on the balance sheet, this episode raises several practical questions that need to be addressed now rather than at year-end.

Counterparty risk disclosure

If your firm or your clients hold assets on Coins.ph, or route payments through DCPay's e-wallet infrastructure, the current restrictions are a disclosure event. Under PFRS 7 (Financial Instruments: Disclosures) and its international equivalent IFRS 7, entities must disclose concentrations of risk and the nature of significant counterparty exposures. A regulatory restriction on payment rails at a major counterparty qualifies. Auditors reviewing 2026 financial statements should specifically probe management's assessment of whether any balances held on the platform are recoverable without restriction, and whether any impairment indicators exist.

Going-concern and operational continuity

If a client entity relies on DCPay's infrastructure for peso settlement, the temporary suspension of cash-in and QRPh collection is an operational disruption that management must assess under PAS 1 (Presentation of Financial Statements) going-concern requirements. The VASP license held by Betur appears unaffected for now, but the situation is live and could evolve. Firms should document the date of restriction, the scope of services affected, and any management mitigants in their working papers.

AML programme reviews

The BSP's instruction to Coins.ph to strengthen internal controls is a signal that the regulator found the existing AML framework insufficient in at least one respect. Any accounting firm that provides outsourced compliance or internal audit services to Philippine VASPs or EMIs should treat this as a prompt to review their own clients' transaction monitoring parameters, particularly around customer categorisation and the detection of high-risk business types such as gaming and gambling-adjacent operators. Firms using crypto accounting software with integrated counterparty screening should verify that those screening lists include restricted business categories under BSP guidance.

Ledger segregation

The Coins.ph structure, where DCPay holds the EMI license and Betur holds the VASP license, is a common corporate architecture in the Philippines. It allows each regulated activity to sit under its appropriate license. But it also means that a restriction on one entity can disrupt the user experience of the combined platform even if the other entity remains fully licensed. For clients building treasury or payment infrastructure around such platforms, this is a case study in why contractual clarity about which licensed entity holds client funds matters. Digital asset accounting software should map balances to the correct licensed entity, not to the parent brand.

What Firms and CFOs Should Do Now

The situation is still developing, and the BSP has not made a public determination on revocation. But waiting for a final outcome before acting is not a defensible compliance posture. The following steps are warranted immediately.

Identify and quantify exposure

Map every client or entity that holds balances on Coins.ph, uses DCPay for peso settlement, or has contractual relationships with either DCPay or Betur. Quantify the balances and classify the counterparty risk. This is foundational work for both disclosure and going-concern assessments.

Review AML screening for Philippine VASPs

If you manage or audit AML programmes for Philippine financial institutions, cross-check your transaction monitoring rules against BSP guidance on offshore gambling and high-risk business categories. The BSP's 2025 directive to remove gambling site links from payment applications is the relevant regulatory marker. See also our coverage of how AML licensing enforcement is reshaping crypto exchanges in Asia for a broader regional perspective.

Monitor BSP communications

The Monetary Board has not publicly confirmed or denied revocation proceedings. Follow BSP circulars and Monetary Board resolutions for any further supervisory action. If a resolution is published, it will specify the scope and duration of any restrictions or sanctions, which directly affects the accounting treatment of affected balances.

Document everything

In the current environment, auditors will want to see that management was aware of the restriction, assessed its impact, and took documented steps to mitigate or disclose it. Working papers should include the date restrictions were identified, the management response, and the basis for any conclusion that no material impact exists. This is also context for the earlier BSP regulatory action against Coins.ph, which preceded the current restrictions and is part of the same supervisory thread.

The Broader Signal for Philippine Crypto Compliance

The Philippines has been one of Southeast Asia's more active crypto markets, and the BSP has built a relatively structured VASP licensing regime. But this episode illustrates that holding a license is not the same as having a clean compliance posture. The BSP is clearly willing to take formal supervisory action, including payment restrictions under a Monetary Board resolution, before any revocation determination is made. That is a layered enforcement approach: correct the problem first, and escalate if the correction does not come.

For accounting firms and CFOs, the practical lesson is that counterparty due diligence on Philippine crypto platforms should include a review of both the EMI and VASP license status, the AML programme adequacy, and any publicly available supervisory actions, not just a check that a license number exists on the BSP registry. Digital asset accounting software that flags counterparty licensing changes in real time is becoming a genuine operational necessity rather than a nice-to-have.

Source: Cointelegraph