1.

Name at least five (5)

predicate crimes to money
laundering.
Suggested Answer:
Any five (5) of the following
are predicate crimes of money
laundering:
1) Kidnapping for ransom under
Art.267 of Act no. 3815,
otherwise known as the
Revised Penal Code, as
amended;
2) Sections 3,4,5,7,8 and 9 of
Article Two of RA No.6425, as
amended, otherwise known as
the Dangerous Drugs Act of
1972;
3) Sec.3 par. B,C,E,G,H and I of
RA No.3019, as amended,
otherwise known as the Anti-
Graft and Corrupt Practices
Act;
4) Plunder under RA No. 7080, as
amended;
5) Robbery and extortion under
Articles 294,
295,296,299,300,301 and 302 of
the Revised Penal Code, as
amended;
6) Jueteng and Masiao punished
as illegal gambling under
Presidential Decree No. 1602;
7) Piracy on the high seas under
the Revised Penal Code, as
amended and Presidential
Decree No. 532;
8) Qualified theft under Art 310 of
the RPC, as amended;
9) Swindling under 315 of the
RPC, as amended;
10) Smuggling under RA Nos. 455
and 1937;
11) Violations under RA No. 8792,
otherwise known as the
Electronic Commerce Act of
2000;
12) 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;
13) Fraudulent practices and
other violations under RA
No.8799, otherwise known as
the Securities Regulation Code
of 2000;
14) Felonies or offenses of a similar
nature that are punishable
under the penal laws of other
countries (Sec.3, Anti-Money
Laundering Act of 2001).

2. Rudy is jobless but is reputed to b
a jueteng operator. He has never
been charged or convicted of any
crime. He maintains several bank
accounts and has purchased 5
houses and lots for his children from
the Luansing Realty, Inc. Since he
does not have any visible job, the
company reported his purchases to
the Anti-Money Laundering Council
(AMLC). Thereafter, AMLC charged
him with violation of the Anti-Money
Laundering Law. Upon request of the
AMLC, the bank disclosed to it
Rudys bank deposits amounting to
P100 Million. Subsequently, he was
charged in the court for violation of
the Anti-Money Laundering Law.
a) Can Rudy move to dismiss
the case on the ground that he has
no criminal record?
Suggested Answer:
No. As with any crime, the
absence of a criminal record is not a
defense against a charge for
violation of the Anti-Money
Laundering Law. Moreover, criminal
record is not an element of Money
Laundering Offense defined under
Section 4 of the Anti-Money
Laundering Law.
b) To raise funds for his
defense, Rudy sold the houses and
lots to a friend. Can Luansing Realty,
Inc. be compelled to transfer to the
buyer ownership of the houses and
lots?
Suggested Answer:
Yes. In the absence of a freeze
order on the subject houses and lots
pending criminal proceedings
against Rudy, the ownership thereof
may be validly transferred to
another, and Lunasing Realty, Inc.
can be compelled to recognize the
rights of the buyer as the new owner.
Section 7(6) in relation to section 10
of the Anti-Money Laundering Law
requires and Order from the Court of
Appeals for the freezing of any
money or property believed to be
the proceeds of any unlawful
activity.
c) In disclosingRudys bank
accounts to the AMLC, did the bank
violate any law?
Suggested Answer:
Yes. The bank violated RA No.
1405 (Secrecy of Bank Deposits Act),
which considers all deposits of
whatever nature with banks or
banking institutions as absolutely
confidential and may not be
examined, inquired or looked into by
any person, government official,
bureau or office except upon the
depositors written permission; in
cases of impeachment; upon order
of a competent court in cases of
bribery of, or dereliction of duty by
public officials; and in cases where
the money deposited or invested is
the subject matter of the litigation.
The disclosure was made before
Rudy was charged in court for
violation of Anti-Money Laundering
Law. Hence, his deposits were
technically not yet the subject
matter of litigation.
Moreover, under RA No. 9160,
the AMLC may inquire into or
examine any particular deposit or
investment with any banking
institution upon order of any
competent court for violation of the
said Act. In the case at bar, the
AMLC merely requested the
disclosure; it did not secure the
requisite court order. The bank,
therefore, was under no obligation
to disclose Rudys deposits.
d) Supposing the titles of the
house and lots are in possession of
the Luansing Realty, Inc., is it under
obligation to deliver the titles to
Rudy?
Suggested Answer:
Yes. There being no freeze
order over the subject houses and
lots, Luansing Realty, Inc. is obliged
to deliver the titles to Rudy who is the
owner thereof.