Philippine Bar review · Question

Practice question: Anti-Financial Account Scamming Act (RA 12010, Secs. 3–5 and 16–21)

Multiple Choice Hard

Practice question

A defendant is convicted under Section 5(c) for the specified false-identity account opening. The defendant argues that the court may never order account closure because Section 5 offenses are separate from money muling. Which is correct?
  1. Closure is prohibited under Section 16(d).
  2. Section 16(d) expressly requires closure for Section 5(c) or 5(d).
  3. Closure depends exclusively on three conspirators.
  4. Only a victim may issue the court’s closure order.
  5. The separate-offense classification removes every statutory consequence.

Legal references

  • RA 12010, Sections 3-5 and 16, AFASA definitions, separate offenses and penalties: https://lawphil.net/statutes/repacts/ra2024/ra_12010_2024.html

Answer this question in flashcards to review your response and continue practicing.