When people hear the term “money laundering,” they often imagine a criminal trying to hide money obtained from an illegal act. But under Philippine law, the person who commits the predicate crime and the person who launders its proceeds do not necessarily have to be the same person.

This was clarified by the Supreme Court in a case it decided in 2022. The decision highlights an important principle: money laundering is a separate offense from the unlawful activity that generated the money.

The predicate crime and money laundering are separate

Money laundering involves transactions involving money or property connected to an unlawful activity covered by the Anti-Money Laundering Act. The underlying crime may involve fraud, theft, drug offenses, kidnapping for ransom, or other offenses identified by law.

A person does not have to be convicted of the underlying crime before a money laundering case can be filed. The two cases may proceed independently.

Consider a simple example. Juan obtains ₱10 million through fraud and gives the money to Pedro. Pedro knows that the money came from fraud but helps transfer it through several accounts or otherwise deals with it to make it appear legitimate.

Even though Pedro did not commit the fraud, he may still be held liable for money laundering.

This is important because otherwise, a person could potentially avoid responsibility simply by claiming that he or she was not involved in the predicate crime.

But suspicious money is not automatically “laundered” money

There is, however, an important safeguard.

The government cannot establish money laundering simply by showing that a person received or transferred a large or suspicious amount of money. It must still prove that the money was connected to an unlawful activity and establish the accused person’s required knowledge of that connection.

For example, if Pedro receives ₱10 million from Juan and later transfers the money to another account, that transaction alone does not make Pedro a money launderer. There must be evidence showing that the money came from an unlawful activity and that Pedro knew, as required by law, about its criminal origin.

This distinction is important because ordinary financial transactions can sometimes appear unusual without being illegal. A large transfer, an unfamiliar source of funds, or the use of several bank accounts does not, by itself, establish money laundering.

A person does not have to commit the predicate crime

The practical lesson is that money laundering liability can extend beyond the person who committed the predicate offense.

Someone who knowingly deals with criminal proceeds may be exposed to a money laundering case even if that person had no part in generating those proceeds. The focus is not only on who obtained the money, but also on what others knowingly do with it afterward.

At the same time, simply receiving money from another person does not automatically make someone a money launderer. The circumstances of the transaction and, importantly, what the person knew about the money’s source remain significant.

For individuals and businesses, this underscores the importance of knowing who they are dealing with and, where appropriate, understanding the source and purpose of funds. Proper documentation and reasonable due diligence can help demonstrate the legitimate nature of a transaction and avoid potential legal complications.

The broader principle is straightforward: a person does not have to commit the predicate crime to be held liable for money laundering. But neither does every questionable financial transaction amount to money laundering. The prosecution must still prove the unlawful source or origin of the money and the accused’s required knowledge beyond reasonable doubt.

NARP LAW assists clients in navigating complex legal issues, regulatory requirements, and legal risks structuring operations for compliance and growth.

For more information, you may contact us at info@narplaw.com or at +639063731095.