CA extends freeze order on suspected laundered accts

The Court of Appeals has extended the freeze order on eight bank accounts held by Price Richardson, the test case for the new Anti-Money Laundering Law.

In a landmark six-page decision, the Court of Appeals extended the freeze orders on the bank accounts of Price Richardson, effectively clearing up the lines of jurisdiction between the appellate courts, the trial courts and the Anti-Money Laundering Council.

The case was the first among several petitions pending before the CA. It involved Price Richardson’s accounts at Hong Kong and Shanghai Banking Corp., China Banking Corp. and Citibank which were ordered frozen by AMLC.

When the AMLC freeze order expired, AMLC sought an extension before the CA but Price Richardson countered that the Regional Trial Court had taken jurisdiction of the case.

According to the CA, however, the council has not filed formal money launder charges against Price Richardson since the case was still being investigated by AMLC. This meant that RTC has not acquired jurisdiction of the case and the CA was still the authority that could either extend or lift the freeze order on the accounts.

Under the law, the 15-day freeze order of the AMLC may be extended by the court, including the RTC if the money laundering case has been filed before it by the AMLC.

However, only the CA and the Supreme Court were given the authority to issue a temporary restraining order or writ of preliminary injuction against any freeze order issued by the AMLC.

"Since the RTC has not acquired jurisdiction of the case and all that exists are freeze orders issued by AMLC, [this] court has jurisdiction to hear and resolve the instant petition praying for the extension of freeze orders issued by the AMLC on subject bank accounts," the CA said in the decision.

In a letter to the AMLC, Solicitor General Simeon Marcelo said the case was the first among the several petition already filed in court.

"With the favorable decision in this case, we hope to obtain similarly favorable resolution of the other pending petitions," Marcelo said.

The case against Price Richardson started in 2001 right after the enactment of the Anti-Money Laundering Act. In a raid of the company’s Makati office, AMLC seized several documents, including false buy-sell confirmation slips, stock quotations, brokers scripts, lists of fictitous names used by brokers/ salesmen with their corresponding real names and other documents indicating that the company was engaged in fraudulent buying and selling of securities.

AMLC issued a freeze order on bank accounts, alleging that they were being used as channels for illegal activities. The order was served on Nov. 20, 2001.

The CA said Price Richardson’s explanation was denied for lack of merit.