Civil forfeiture under the Anti-Money Laundering Act (AMLA) of the Philippines, particularly in relation to Republic Act No. 9160, as amended by R.A. Nos. 9194, 10167, and 10365.
I. Nature of Civil Forfeiture under AMLA
The forfeiture proceedings initiated by the Anti-Money Laundering Council (AMLC) under Section 12 and Section 13 of RA 9160 are civil in nature, independent of any criminal conviction. It proceeds in rem (against the property), rather than in personam (against the individual).
Key Doctrine:
As reiterated in Republic v. Gloria, G.R. No. 205728, June 27, 2016, the forfeiture of assets under AMLA does not require a prior criminal conviction, unlike criminal prosecution for money laundering itself.
Positive Points in the CA Ruling:
• Reinforcement of Constitutional Rights
• The CA prudently invoked due process and the right to property, cautioning the government against weaponizing forfeiture without sufficient proof.
• This aligns with Republic v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 152154, July 15, 2003, which stressed that even forfeiture cases must satisfy the constitutional requirement of due process and substantial evidence.
• Clarification of the Required Standard of Proof
• The CA applied the civil standard of preponderance of evidence, as opposed to criminal proof beyond reasonable doubt.
• However, it concluded that even this lower standard was not met.
Mere disproportionality between bank deposits and income, without clear linkage to an unlawful activity, is insufficient to justify forfeiture.
II. Critical Legal Issues and Doctrinal Tensions
The AMLA’s objective is to suppress the laundering of illicit wealth even absent a criminal conviction.
1. Is Probable Cause Sufficient to Sustain Forfeiture?
• Under Sec. 12 of AMLA, the AMLC may apply for forfeiture “upon determination that probable cause exists that any monetary instrument or property is in any way related to an unlawful activity or a money laundering offense.”
• However, the latest CA decision appears to have raised the threshold to preponderance of evidence regarding the accused’s personal knowledge or participation, which could undermine AMLA’s civil intent.
Conflict: AMLA requires probable cause to initiate forfeiture; yet the CA’s emphasis on actual “knowledge” by the account holders may blur the line between civil and criminal proceedings.
2. Unexplained Wealth as a Basis for Forfeiture
• The AMLC pointed to suspicious transactions far exceeding lawful income—a recognized red flag under AMLA’s Implementing Rules and BSP Circular No. 706 (2011).
• In Republic v. Sandiganbayan and Benedicto, G.R. No. 152154, July 15, 2003, the SC upheld forfeiture on the ground that unexplained wealth was prima facie evidence of ill-gotten property.
⚖️ III. Effect of Dismissed Criminal Charges on Civil Forfeiture
Legal Clarification:
Dismissal of the criminal case does not bar the continuation of civil forfeiture under AMLA.
• See Republic v. Sandiganbayan (Second Division), G.R. No. 195597, April 21, 2014:
“It is immaterial that there is no conviction for any unlawful activity as civil forfeiture proceedings are independent and distinct from criminal actions.”
IV. Suggested Doctrinal Refinement:
• Uphold the CA’s concern for constitutional rights, but decouple civil forfeiture from criminal outcomes;
• Clarify that disproportionate wealth, if unexplained and proven through bank records, may be sufficient to justify forfeiture even without proof of knowledge or conviction;
• Emphasize that AMLA is designed for asset recovery and deterrence, not merely punishment post-conviction.
Key Legal References:
• R.A. No. 9160, as amended – Anti-Money Laundering Act of 2001
• Republic v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 152154, July 15, 2003
• Republic v. Glora, G.R. No. 205728, June 27, 2016
• Republic v. Sandiganbayan (2nd Div.), G.R. No. 195597, April 21, 2014
• AMLC Regulatory Issuances; BSP Circular No. 706, 2011
• FATF Recommendation 4 – Confiscation and provisional measures
Generated by ChatGPT, June 25, 2025.
