Pinoy Entrepreneurs, in dealing with considerable money transactions with banks and other financial institutions, are sure to have heard of money laundering and the "AMLA". Money laundering is generally defined by the International Criminal Police Organization (Interpol) as “any act or attempted act to conceal or disguise the identity of illegally obtained proceeds so that they appear to have originated from legitimate sources.” Even before the passage of the Anti-Money Laundering Law ("AMLA"), the problem was addressed by the Philippine government through the issuance of various circulars by the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP). Yet ultimately, legislative proscription was necessary, especially with the inclusion of the Philippines in the Financial Action Task Force’s list of non-cooperative countries and territories in the fight against money laundering.

 

The original AMLA, Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9160, was passed in 2001. It was amended by R.A. No. 9194 in 2003. The Anti-Money Laundering Council (AMLC) is the primary agency tasked to implement the AMLA, as well as initiate legal actions authorized in the AMLA such as civil forfeiture proceedings and complaints for the prosecution of money laundering offenses.

The AMLA defines money laundering as “a crime whereby the proceeds of an unlawful activity as [defined in the law] are transacted, thereby making them appear to have originated from legitimate sources.” There are 3 modes of committing the crime of money laundering, committed by any person:

In addition to providing for the definition and penalties for the crime of money laundering, the AMLA also authorizes certain provisional remedies that would aid the AMLC in the enforcement of the AMLA – the “freeze order” and the “bank inquiry order”.

 

A freeze order is aimed at preserving monetary instruments or property in any way deemed related to unlawful activities as defined in the AMLA. The owner of such monetary instruments or property would thus be inhibited from utilizing the same for the duration of the freeze order. To make such freeze order anteceded by a judicial proceeding with notice to the account holder would allow for or lead to the dissipation of such funds even before the order could be issued. This may be done ex parte, without notice and hearing.

A bank inquiry order does not necessitate any form of physical seizure of property of the account holder. What the bank inquiry order authorizes is the examination of the particular deposits or investments in banking institutions or non-bank financial institutions. The monetary instruments or property deposited with such banks or financial institutions are not seized in a physical sense, but are examined on particular details such as the account holder’s record of deposits and transactions. Unlike the assets subject of the freeze order, the records to be inspected under a bank inquiry order cannot be physically seized or hidden by the account holder. Said records are in the possession of the bank and therefore cannot be destroyed at the instance of the account holder alone as that would require the extraordinary cooperation and devotion of the bank. This cannot be done without notice and hearing.

 

Both are similar in that they are extraordinary provisional reliefs which the AMLC may avail of to effectively combat and prosecute money laundering offenses. (Source: Republic of the Philippines vs. Eugenio, G.R. No. 174629, 14 February 2008)