Practice question
A covered person knows that a particular covered transaction must be reported to AMLC but deliberately fails to report it. No prior conviction for the underlying unlawful activity exists. The defense says section 4 can never reach a reporting omission and every AMLA case must await a predicate conviction. Which is correct?
- Both defenses are necessarily correct
- Only a customer, never a covered person, may commit an AMLA offense
- The omission is automatically lawful if the amount was eventually refunded
- Amended section 4 separately penalizes the knowing reporting failure, and section 6 permits independent prosecution rather than requiring a prior predicate conviction
- The omission is a crime only if the covered person publicly announces it
Legal references
- https://lawphil.net/statutes/repacts/ra2001/ra_9160_2001.html — RA 9160, the Anti-Money Laundering Act, read with the subsequent amendments cited below.
- https://lawphil.net/statutes/repacts/ra2003/ra_9194_2003.html — sections 1–2, covered and suspicious transactions.
- https://lawphil.net/statutes/repacts/ra2013/ra_10365_2013.html — sections 4–5 and 7, current money laundering offense, independent prosecution and reporting confidentiality.
- https://lawphil.net/statutes/repacts/ra2017/ra_10927_2017.html — sections 1–3, casino coverage and cash transactions.
- https://lawphil.net/statutes/repacts/ra2021/ra_11521_2021.html — section 2, current covered and suspicious transaction definitions and real-estate cash threshold.
- https://lawphil.net/statutes/repacts/ra2022/ra_11930_2022.html — section 9(c), sections 4–5 violations as AMLA unlawful activity.
- https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/2/100174 — RA 12312, sections 8, 16–17 and 20; October 29, 2025 newspaper publication recorded by the Supreme Court E-Library; statutory predicate rule operative before June 30, 2026.
Answer this question in flashcards to review your response and continue practicing.