Prompted by the warnings of the AMLC that the funds and bank deposits involved in these cases were likely to disappear unless the freeze orders were extended, the SC Third Division granted the urgent motions filed by the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) last April 3 for the extension of the freeze orders.
The High Tribunal said the freeze orders were effective immediately and should be given "full force" until further orders from the court.
Among the accounts ordered frozen indefinitely were the those of pyramiding syndicates, particularly the accounts of Rosario and Saturnino Baladjay and their firm, Multinational Telecom Investors Corp.; the accounts of Michael Jay Findlay of Macondray and Co. and that of RAB Realty Corp.
The SC ruling also extended the freeze order on the bank deposits of other groups and individuals allegedly involved in money laundering such as the Abu Sayyaf Group, the Genta Ogami transactions and those involved in the Land Bank tax scam.
These suspected funds, which were deposited in around 138 banks, were frozen when the AMLC investigated pyramiding scams involving such companies as Multitel, Tibayan Management Group and the Mateo Management Group. There were 29 cases currently pending before the Court of Appeals and seven before the SC.
The assets frozen in connection with these cases would have been unfrozen when the original freeze orders lapsed yesterday.
AMLC explained that under the new transitory provision of the Anti-Money Laundering Act (AMLA), the freeze orders were valid for only 30 days after the amendments took effect unless extended by the Court of Appeals.
In a move to head off the effects of the new AMLA’s transitory provision, the AMLC filed very urgent motions through the OSG, asking the SC to remand the seven anti-money laundering cases to the Court of Appeals (CA) for resolution.
According to AMLC, these cases have been pending before the SC on a petition for review on certiorari, questioning the CA’s decision to dismiss them for lack of jurisdiction.
AMLC said it also filed urgent motions before the CA asking the appellate court to determine the existence of probable cause for extending the freeze orders in 29 separate cases.