Remedies available to a related account holder

The 2018 RIRR of the AMLA defines “related account” as an account, the funds and sources of
which originated from and/or materially- linked to the monetary instruments or properties subject of the
freeze order or an order of inquiry, regardless of the layer of accounts that funds had passed through or
transactions they had undergone.1

On the other hand, Rule 10, Sec. 4.2 thereof provides:

“Freeze and Report Related Accounts:

(a) Upon receipt of the freeze order that directs the freezing of related accounts, and upon verification by the
covered person that there are accounts related to the monetary instrument or property subject of the
freeze order, the covered person shall immediately freeze these related accounts wherever these may
be found. 


(b) If the related accounts cannot be determined within twenty-four (24) hours from receipt of the freeze
order due to the volume and/or complexity of the transactions, or any other justifiable factors, the
covered person shall effect the freezing of the related accounts within a reasonable period and shall
submit a supplemental return thereof to the Court of Appeals and the AMLC within twenty-four (24)
hours from the freezing of said related accounts. 


(c) x x x”

Based on the foregoing, it is clear that the existence of a related account presupposes that there
is already a freeze order or order of inquiry issued by the Court of Appeals. In case of a freeze order, the
2018 RIRR allows the AMLC to already include in its petition ex parte the freezing of related or materially-
linked accounts.2 A bank inquiry court order ex parte for related accounts, however, is preceded by a bank
inquiry court order ex parte for the principal account which court order ex parte for related accounts is
separately based on probable cause that such related account is material linked to the principal account
inquired into.3

The remedies, therefore, of a related account holder are the same as those available to a principal
account holder in case of a freeze order or an order of inquiry. In case of a freeze order which includes the
freezing of related accounts, the related account holder may file a motion with the Court of Appeals to lift
the freeze order on the grounds of (1) lack probable cause that the monetary instrument or property is
related to an unlawful activity as defined under the AMLA, or (2) that it is not a related account. Any
adverse decision of the Court of Appeals thereon may be appealed to the Supreme Court via a Petition for
Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.

In case of an order of inquiry, the Supreme Court has declared that the account holder may
question such only after a subsequent freeze order is also issued by the Court of Appeals over the same
account.4 Thus:

1 2018 RIRR of the AMLA, Rule 2, Sec. 1 (jjjj).

2 Id., Sec. 2.2.
3 SPCMB Law v. Court of Appeals, En Banc, G.R. No. 216914, December 6, 2016.
4 Id.
 “The ex-parte inquiry shall be upon probable cause that the deposits or investments are related
to an unlawful activity as defined in Section 3(i) of the law or a money laundering offense under
Section 4 of the same law. To effect the limit on the ex-parte inquiry, the petition under oath for
authority to inquire, must, akin to the requirement of a petition for freeze order enumerated in
Title VIII of A.M. No. 05-11-04-SC, contain the name and address of the respondent; the grounds
relied upon for the issuance of the order of inquiry; and the supporting evidence that the subject
bank deposit are in any way related to or involved in an unlawful activity.

“If the CA finds no substantial merit in the petition, it shall dismiss the petition outright stating
the specific reasons for such denial. If found meritorious and there is a subsequent petition for
freeze order, the proceedings shall be governed by the existing Rules on Petitions for Freeze
Order in the CA. From the issuance of a freeze order, the party aggrieved by the ruling of the
court may appeal to the Supreme Court by petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the
Rules of Court raising all pertinent questions of law and issues, including the propriety of the
issuance of a bank inquiry order. The appeal shall not stay the enforcement of the subject decision
or final order unless the Supreme Court directs otherwise.”5

Liabilities of a related account holder

The AMLA is silent as to the liabilities of a related account holder by virtue only of the fact that the
account was tagged as “related”. However, once an account is determined as a related account, relevant
transactions of it are required to be reported to the AMLC as suspicious transactions. 6 Furthermore, the
AMLA provides that:

“SEC. 4. Money Laundering Offense. – Money laundering is committed by

any person who, knowing that any monetary instrument or property represents,
involves, or relates to the proceeds of any unlawful activity:

“(a) x x x x;

“(b) converts, transfers, disposes of, moves, acquires, possesses or uses said
monetary instrument or property;

(c)x x x x”

Accordingly, a related account and its holder may be:

(1) Subject to investigation of Anti- Money Laundering Council

The 2018 RIRR provides that the AMLC shall investigate:

(a) Suspicious transactions and covered transactions deemed suspicious after
investigation by the AMLC;
(b) Money Laundering/ Terrorism Financing;
(c) Any property or funds in any way related to Terrorism Financing or acts of
terrorism;
(d) Properties or funds of any person in relation to whom there is probable cause
to believe that such person or persons are committing or attempting to commit
or conspiring to commit, or participating in or facilitating terrorism of
Terrorism Financing;
(e) Other violations of the AMLA and TFPSA, their respective IRR, and other
AMLC issuances.

5 Id.
6 RIRR, Sec. 4.2.c.
 The AMLC may therefore look into and investigate the related account and its holder. The AMLC
will determine whether there is probable cause to charge the holder with a money laundering offense under
Sec. 4 of the AMLA, resulting in the filing of a complaint with the Department of Justice or the
Ombudsman.7

The filing of a money laundering offense against the account holder, furthermore, will not preclude
the filing of the appropriate charge for the predicate crime involved, as the latter will proceed
independently of the money laundering case. In fact, any criminal case relating to an unlawful activity shall
be given precedence over the prosecution of any offense or violation under RA No. 9160 (AMLA), without
prejudice to the filing of a separate petition for civil forfeiture or the issuance of an asset preservation order
or a freeze order.8

(2) Subject of a petition for civil forfeiture

The AMLC may also file with the Regional Trial Court, through the Office of the Solicitor General,
a verified petition for civil forfeiture with prayer for issuance of asset preservation order of the related
account.9

The Regional Trial Court, upon determination that probable cause exists that the account is in any
way related to an unlawful activity, may issue an asset preservation order which shall be effective
immediately, forbidding any transaction, withdrawal, deposit, transfer, removal, conversion, concealment
or other disposition of the subject related account. 10 The asset preservation order shall be effective for a
period of twenty (20) days from the respective dates of service to respondent or any person acting in his
behalf.11 Within the twenty-day period, the court shall conduct a summary hearing at which respondent
may for good cause show why the provisional asset preservation shall be lifted. 12 The respondent may also
raise in a motion or in the comment or opposition the grounds for its discharge on the grounds that: (1) the
order was improperly or irregularly issued or enforced, (2) any of the material allegations in the petition,
or any of the contents of any attachment to the petition thereto, or its verification, is false, and (3) the specific
personal or real property ordered preserved is not in any manner connected with the alleged unlawful
activity as defined in Section 3(i) of Republic Act No. 9160, as amended. 13

It must be noted that no prior criminal charge, pendency, or conviction for an unlawful activity or
money laundering offense is necessary for the commencement of the resolution of a petition for civil
forfeiture.14 The court shall grant the petition if there is preponderance of evidence in favor of the petitioner
and declare the monetary instrument, property, or proceeds forfeited to the State, or in appropriate cases,
order the respondent to pay an amount equal to the value of the monetary instrument or property and
adjudge such other reliefs as may be warranted.15

7 SPCMB Law, En Banc, supra

8 A.M. No. 05-11-04-SC, Sec. 28.
9 RIRR, Rule 12, Sec.1.1.
10 Id., Sec. 1.4.
11 A.M. No. 05-11-04-SC, Sec. 11.
12 Id., Sec. 12.
13 Id., Sec. 17.
14 Id., Sec. 27.
15 Id., Sec. 32.
 An aggrieved party may appeal the judgment to the Court of Appeals by filing within fifteen (15)
days from its receipt a notice of appeal with the court which rendered the judgment and serving a copy
upon the adverse party.16

16 Id., Sec. 34(a).