The Supreme Court, in its Decision promulgated 11 October 2022, affirmed the conviction of former banker Girlie J. Lingad (Lingad) for money laundering as penalized under Section 4(a) of Republic Act (RA) No. 9160, as amended by RA No. 9194, or The Anti-Money Laundering Act of 2001 (AMLA).
Lingad took advantage of her access to the bank’s computer system to conduct anomalous and unauthorized fund transactions involving client accounts. She effectively resigned from the bank in 2004 upon her prolonged absence without official leave. The bank discovered the anomalous transactions only after Lingad had fled to the US.
A criminal charge was filed in court against Lingad in 2006. The Government had her extradited, and upon arraignment, she pled not guilty to the charge.
On 8 August 2013, the trial court found overwhelming evidence that Lingad processed all the anomalous transactions, and thus, convicted her beyond reasonable doubt for money laundering under Section 4(a) of the AMLA. Lingad then appealed her conviction to the Court of Appeals (CA), which, however, affirmed the trial court’s ruling.
Lingad filed a petition for review on certiorari before the Supreme Court, arguing that the prosecution failed to prove her guilt beyond reasonable doubt for violation of Section 4(a) of the AMLA.
In dismissing her petition and affirming the CA’s decision, the Supreme Court took occasion to clarify the distinction between the money laundering offense and the unlawful activity. It held that money laundering generally involves a predicate offense, a crime that is a component of another offense. This predicate offense is usually an unlawful activity that generates the proceeds of money or property subject of the crime of money laundering. The predicate offense in money laundering is distinct from the offense of money laundering, such that the two offenses may be prosecuted in separate criminal actions.
The Supreme Court went on to rule that the criminal action for unlawful activity may proceed independently of the money laundering charge, and the guilt of the person who committed the unlawful activity need not be determined first. What is integral is that it be proven that the money or property in the money laundering offense are proceeds from an unlawful activity.
As held by the Supreme Court, the predicate or related crimes in money laundering cases are offenses that involve proceeds, any amount or type of money or property, that can be laundered, such are listed under Section 3 (i) of the AMLA. Section 4 thereof only provides that a person commits money laundering when he or she transacts the proceeds knowing that it came from an unlawful activity. It does not require that the money launderer should have committed the unlawful activity as it only states that the money launderer should have known that the proceeds came from an unlawful activity. Money laundering, further, does not require the identity of the person who committed the unlawful activity; it only requires that the proceeds came from such activity.
The decision in the Lingad case, the first criminal case involving money laundering to reach the Supreme Court, is a huge victory for the Philippines. It showcases the successful partnership among government agencies, and the crucial role of the judiciary in convicting money laundering and laying down doctrines in prosecutions for money laundering. It sends a strong warning to would-be money launderers, especially those in financial institutions, to maintain the integrity of the financial system.
The Lingad case is the latest addition to the expanding Philippine jurisprudence on the AMLA, and to the multiple convictions that the Anti-Money Laundering Council has obtained through the years.
Posted 9 June 2023
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
