a. NO. The contention of Rudy is not tenable because under AMLA, "money laundering crime" committed when the proceeds of an "unlawful activity," like jueteng operations, are made to appear as having originated from legitimate sources. Money laundering crime is separate from the unlawful activity of being a jueteng operator, and requires no previous conviction for the unlawful activity. (Sec. 3, AMLA)
b. YES. Rudy is still the owner of the house and lot in question and as such he may dispose the same as he pleases. Absent any freeze order filed by the OSG on behalf of the AMLC, Rudy may dispose said properties and compel Luansing Realty to transfer to the buyer ownership of the properties sold.
c. YES. Under the Anti-money Laundering Law, as amended, the AMLC may look into bank accounts upon order of any competent court based in ex parte application when it has been established that said accounts are related to an unlawful activity. In the case at hand, the AMLC merely requested the disclosure of said accounts without court order. The bank therefore violated the secrecy of bank account of Rudy when it allowed the AMLC to look into said accounts without court order. (Sec. 11, Anti-money Laundering Law as amended)
d. YES. The properties are validly sold in favor of Rudy and as such Luansing Realty is under the obligation to deliver the titles to the buyer. This is without prejudice to the application of freeze order by the OSG on behalf of the AMLC.
Prospero’s refusal is not justified. Notwithstanding the provisions of RA 1405, RA 6426 and RA 8791, the AMLC may inquire into or examine any particular deposit or investment with any bank or non-bank financial institution if there is a probable cause that the deposits are related to unlawful activity under the Anti-money laundering law, as in this case. Bank inquiry order from the court is not necessary since the predicate crime is violation of the Dangerous Drugs Law. (Section 11 of RA 9160, as amended)
a. Kidnapping for ransom under Article 267 of Act no. 3815, otherwise known as the RPC, as amended;
b. Sections 3,4,5,7,8, and 9 of Article Two of R.A. No. 6425, as amended, otherwise known as the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972;
c. Section 3 paragraphs B,C,E,G,H, and I of R.A. No. 3019, as amended, otherwise known as the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act;
d. Plunder under R.A. No. 7080, as amended;
e. Robbery and extortion under Articles 294, 295, 296, 300, 301, and 302 of the RPC, as amended;
f. Jueteng and Masiao punished as illegal gambling under PD No. 1602;
g. Piracy on the high seas under the RPC, as amended and PD No. 532;
h. Qualified theft under Article 310 of the RPC, as amended;
i. Swindling under Article 315 of the RPC, as amended;
j. Smuggling under R.A. Nos. 455 and 1937;
k. Violations under RA No. 8792, otherwise known as the Electronic Commerce Act of 2000;
l. Hijacking and other violations under RA No. 6235; destructive arson and murder, as defined under the RPC, as amended, including those perpetrated by terrorists against non-combatant persons and similar targets;
m. Fraudulent practices and other violations under RA No. 8799, otherwise known as the SRC of 2000;
n. Felonies or offenses of a similar nature that are punishable under the penal laws of other countries.
I shall advise Banco de Plata no to comply with the order of the Anti-Money Laundering Council. It cannot inquire into the deposits of Congressman Abner, regardless of currency, without a bank inquiry order from a competent court, because crimes involved are not kidnapping for ransom, violations of the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act, hijacking and other violations of Republic Act No. 6235, destructive arson, murder, and terrorism and conspiracy to commit terrorism. (Sec. 11 of Anti-Money Laundering Act)
The Anti-Money Laundering Council cannot order Banco de Plata to hold all withdrawals and other transactions involving the accounts of Congressman Abner. It is the Court of Appeals which has the power to issue a freeze order over the accounts upon petition of the Anti-Money Laundering Council. (Anti-Money Laundering Act; Republic v. Carbini Green Ross, 489 SCRA 644, 2006)
Flora may not be prosecuted for money laundering. Money laundering is a crime whereby the proceeds of an unlawful activity are transacted making it appear that they originated from legitimate sources. One of the ways of committing money laundering is if a person knows the cash relates to unlawful activity and transacts. Under the rules implementing the Anti-Money Laundering law, however, only qualified theft (not simple theft) is considered an unlawful activity. In the case presented, the theft committed by Flora did not become qualified because it was not committed with grave abuse of discretion.
A covered transaction report involves transaction/s in cash or other equivalent monetary instrument involving a total amount in excess of 500k within one banking day while suspicious transaction report involves transactions with covered institutions regardless of the amounts involved made under any of the suspicious circumstances enumerated by law.
a. The AMLC cannot examine the bank accounts of the accused-public officials without seeking a prior court order. Under the Anti-Money Laundering law, the AMLC needs to obtain a bank inquiry order from the Court of Appeals to inquire into funds and deposits if there is probable cause in relation to an unlawful activity under AMLA. Bank inquiry order is not necessary, only if the predicate crime is hijacking, kidnapping, terrorism, murder, arson or violation of the Dangerous Drugs Law (Section 11 of R.A. 9160, as amended). In the present case, the predicate crime, graft and corrupt practice act, does not fall within the exception.
b. YES the AMLC may apply for a freeze order with the Court of Appeals. It must establish the existence of probable cause that the funds and deposits it wants to freeze relate to any of the unlawful activities under AMLA. (Section 11 of RA 9160, as amended; Subido Pagente Certeza, Mendoza and Binay Law Offices v. Court of Appeals, GR No. 216914, December 6, 2016)
a. YES, the legal position of YB in requring written permission from the depositor is correct. The AMLC cannot order the bank to inquire into the bank account of any depositor on mere suspicion of acts of graft and bribery without his written consent or a bank inquiry order issued by the competent court.
b. The AMLC has no power to order a banking institution to reveal matters relating to bank accounts without a bank inquiry order issued by the competent court about the existence of probable cause that the deposits, funds or investments of the person relate to unlawful activities under the Anti-Money Laundering law. A bank inquiry order, however, is not necessary, however, and as such, the AMLA may order the disclosure of information about bank accounts if the predicate crime/s is/are: a) hijacking, b) kidnapping, c) violation of the terrorism financing act, d) murder, e) arson and, f) violation of the Dangerous Drugs law. (Section 11 of AMLA)
The appointment of a distributor in the Philippines is not sufficient to constitute doing business unless it is under the full control of the foreign corporation. If the distributor is an independent entity doing business for its own name and account, the latter cannot be considered as doing business. (Steel Case v. Design International Selection, GR No 171995, April 18, 2012)
