This is general information, not legal advice. Money-laundering matters are high-risk; consult counsel before filing anything.

1) Why the counter-affidavit matters

In money-laundering complaints under the Anti-Money Laundering Act of 2001 (AMLA, RA 9160 as amended), the counter-affidavit is your principal defense at the preliminary investigation stage. It’s your chance to:

defeat or blunt the prosecutor’s finding of probable cause;
fix misconceptions about transactions and source of funds;
place your documentary trail (bank records, KYC files, contracts, tax returns) in proper context;
preserve objections to illegally obtained evidence or procedural violations.

Failing to submit one rarely helps; you forfeit the chance to controvert the complaint’s version of your transactions.

2) Where the counter-affidavit fits in the process

Typical flow (criminal complaint):

Complaint is filed (often by AMLC or a covered institution’s officer) with annexes (e.g., bank certifications, transaction histories, STRs, corporate records).
Subpoena is issued requiring the respondent to file a counter-affidavit within a fixed period (commonly 10 calendar days from receipt, unless extended). Extensions are discretionary and should be sought promptly, showing good cause (e.g., voluminous bank records).
Counter-affidavit (with supporting affidavits and annexes) is filed and served on the complainant.
Reply/Rejoinder rounds may follow, then resolution (either dismissal or filing of an Information in court).

Related civil/administrative tracks: AMLC may also pursue freeze orders, asset preservation, or civil forfeiture in parallel. Those have different pleadings; do not confuse them with the counter-affidavit for the criminal case, though facts and evidence overlap.

3) Basic legal theories to keep in mind

Money-laundering under AMLA generally punishes acts such as:

converting, transferring, concealing, or attempting such acts involving proceeds of an unlawful activity;
knowledge (actual or constructive) that property represents such proceeds;
participation or facilitation; and
certain compliance offenses (e.g., failure to keep records, unlawful disclosure).

Prosecution must show:

there exists a predicate offense (unlawful activity) that generated proceeds (proof can be circumstantial at this stage);
your transactions/dealings involved those proceeds; and
you had the requisite knowledge, or the act falls within strict-liability compliance provisions.

Defense themes that often matter:

Lawful source of funds (salary, loans, sales, dividends) and traceability;
Absence of knowledge that funds were illicit (no red flags you reasonably should have caught);
Break in the chain between any predicate offense and your funds;
Procedural/constitutional defects (e.g., lack of authority, defective subpoenas, unlawfully obtained bank records);
Accounting/economic reality (what looks suspicious in isolation may be routine in context).

4) What makes a good counter-affidavit

A. Structure and tone

Crisp, factual, and documented. Prosecutors decide on papers. Avoid rhetoric; prioritize exhibits and timelines.
Self-contained. Assume the reader is new to your industry or business model.
Separation of issues. Distinguish (1) criminal ML allegations, (2) compliance-breach allegations (KYC/record-keeping/reporting), and (3) parallel freeze/forfeiture matters.

B. Core contents checklist

Case caption (office, NPS docket number, parties).
Identification and authority (personal details; for corporations, attach Board/Secretary’s Certificate authorizing the signatory).
Due process preliminaries
- Date of receipt of subpoena; timeliness; if late, explain and attach motion/leave.
Material admissions and denials
- Enumerate each allegation; admit only what is strictly true, otherwise deny and explain.
Factual narrative with timeline
- E.g., employment and income history; loan documents; purchase/sale contracts; nature of business; counterparties; KYC performed.
Documentary proof (properly labeled Annex “A,” “A-1,” …), such as:
- bank certificates/statements; deposit slips; SWIFT/RTGS confirmations; tax returns/alpha lists; audited FS; payslips; contracts (deed of sale, loan agreements); invoices/ORs; corporate papers; e-mails; device logs.
- For covered institutions: KYC/CIP sheets, BO identification, EDD notes, risk ratings, STR deliberation minutes (if disclosable).
Legal discussion
- Elements of charged offense vs. your facts; lawful source analysis; lack of knowledge; no connection to predicate offense; challenge to evidentiary use of STRs/CTR summaries as substitutes for proof; bank-secrecy & data-privacy safeguards; exclusionary arguments where applicable.
Objections/preservations
- Note any illegally obtained evidence, hearsay spreadsheets without custodians, or lack of proper certification of electronic records; reserve further objections for trial if case is filed.
Prayer (dismissal for lack of probable cause).
Verification & jurat (subscribed and sworn before the investigating prosecutor or any authorized officer).
Proof of service on complainant/AMLC.

C. Evidentiary practice points

Authenticity: Use certified copies or documents signed by authorized officers. Identify the custodian of records who can testify, and annex their supporting affidavit.
Accounting schedules: Add simple source-and-application of funds tables that tie deposits/outflows to legitimate sources and business cycles.
Electronic evidence: For bank/fintech records or device logs, annex hash values, metadata printouts, and an affidavit explaining system generation and integrity.
Translations & foreign docs: Provide sworn translations and apostille/legalization where applicable.
Privacy-sensitive material: Redact non-essential personal data but keep unredacted copies in a sealed envelope if the prosecutor permits; explain why.

D. Strategic defenses commonly raised

No predicate link: Prosecution must tether your funds to a specific unlawful activity; an STR signals suspicion, not proof.
Lawful alternative explanation: Salary+bonuses; sale of property; inter-company loans; revolving credit; capital calls; remittance for legitimate trade; escrow.
Timing mismatch: Alleged predicate offense period doesn’t align with your transactions.
Beneficial ownership clarity: Lay out ownership and control trees; attach charts; show ultimate beneficial owners (UBOs) and risk decisions made at the time.
Procedural gaps: Subpoena defects; late or absent annexes; missing Board/AMLC authority of complainant; jurisdictional issues.
For compliance charges: Show KYC performed, risk rating rationale, transaction monitoring notes, training logs, and why no STR (or why filed) based on then-available facts.

5) Corporate respondents & compliance officers

File via an authorized officer; attach Board/Secretary’s Certificate.
If the case targets the Compliance Officer personally, clarify role boundaries, decision-making trail, and good-faith reliance on policies and system alerts.
Annex Policies & Procedures, training records, vendor SLAs for AML systems, and exception approvals to demonstrate a functioning AML framework.

6) Rights & risks

Right to counsel and against self-incrimination. You may refuse to answer incriminating questions, but blanket refusal to file often hurts. Calibrate: give facts that exonerate; avoid volunteering sensitive material not needed to defeat probable cause.
Admissions bind you. Anything in the counter-affidavit can be used at trial. Stick to provable facts.
Parallel proceedings. Statements here may affect freeze/civil forfeiture and even tax or securities cases. Coordinate strategy.

7) Common pitfalls (and how to avoid them)

Vague “lawful source” claims without documents → Add concrete exhibits and an accountant’s schedule.
Dumping spreadsheets with no custodian affidavit → Attach a records-custodian affidavit explaining creation and maintenance.
Ignoring beneficial ownership issues → Provide UBO charts and onboarding notes.
Attacking STRs the wrong way → Emphasize that suspicion ≠ proof, but don’t disparage a reporter acting in good faith; focus on lack of predicate link and knowledge.
Mismatched figures/dates → Cross-check totals, exchange rates, and bank cut-off times; reconcile to the centavo.
Late or improper service → File on time and serve the complainant; attach proof.
Over-arguing law, under-proving facts → Probable cause turns on whether facts reasonably show a crime; evidentiary scaffolding wins.

8) Drafting toolkit: exhibits that tend to matter

Bank certificates/statements, remittance receipts, SWIFT/RTGS advices
ITRs, BIR Form 2316, VAT/percentage tax returns; audited FS
Contracts (employment, sales, leases, loans, investment subscriptions)
Corporate papers (Articles/By-Laws, GIS, SEC filings, board resolutions)
Invoices/ORs, delivery receipts, shipping docs (trade-based ML issues)
KYC profiles, UBO IDs, risk assessments, EDD memos
E-mail threads/letters confirming legitimate purpose; chat logs (with authentication)
Accountant’s certification tying inflows/outflows to legitimate sources
Device/account logs (IP, device IDs) if “account-holder denial” is an issue

9) Sample counter-affidavit (template)

[Republic of the Philippines] [Department of Justice / Office of the City/Provincial Prosecutor of ______]

[Complainant], Complainant, NPS Docket No. ______________ – versus – [Respondent], Respondent.

x———————————————————————————x

COUNTER-AFFIDAVIT

I, [Name], Filipino, of legal age, with address at [address], after having been duly sworn, depose and state that:

1. Introduction & authority. I am the [position/relationship]. For corporate respondents, I am authorized per the attached Secretary’s Certificate (Annex “A”).

2. Due process. I received the Subpoena on [date] requiring submission within [X] days. This filing is timely/covered by the granted extension dated [date] (Annex “B”).

3. Summary of denials. I categorically deny the allegations of money-laundering and/or violations of AMLA/its IRR. The complaint mischaracterizes lawful transactions funded by [describe lawful sources].

4. Factual background. 4.1 Lawful sources. My income and funds derive from [employment/business/loan/sale], supported by [ITRs/Audited FS/Contracts] (Annexes “C” to “C-”). 4.2 Transaction narrative. On [dates], I conducted [deposits/transfers/purchases] totaling ₱[amount], evidenced by [bank records/remittance slips] (Annexes “D” to “D-”). 4.3 Counterparties & purpose. Funds were sent to [party] for [legitimate purpose], as shown by [invoice/contract] (Annexes “E” series). 4.4 KYC/monitoring (if a covered institution). The institution applied [CIP/EDD], documented in [KYC file/EDD memo] (Annexes “F” series).

5. Legal grounds for dismissal. 5.1 No predicate link. The complaint fails to show that the funds are proceeds of any unlawful activity. At most, it cites [STR/rumors/parallel case], which does not constitute proof. 5.2 No knowledge. I had no actual or constructive knowledge that the funds represented illicit proceeds; no red flags reasonably arose at the time. 5.3 Lawful alternative explanation. The deposit/transfer is fully explained by [salary/loan/sale/etc.] with contemporaneous documentation. 5.4 Evidentiary shortcomings. Annexed spreadsheets lack proper authentication/custodian certification; certain bank data appear incomplete/unauthorized. Objections are preserved. 5.5 For compliance allegations (if any). Policies, training, and records show good-faith compliance; any perceived gaps are non-willful and immaterial to ML charges.

6. Prayer. I respectfully pray that this complaint be DISMISSED for lack of probable cause. I likewise pray for such other reliefs as are just and equitable.

[City], Philippines, [date].

[Name] Respondent

VERIFICATION & CERTIFICATION I attest that the foregoing facts are true and based on my personal knowledge and/or authentic records.

[Name]

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this [date] in [City], affiant exhibiting [ID type/number]. [Investigating Prosecutor/Officer] Administering Officer

COPY FURNISHED: [Complainant/AMLC/Address/E-mail]

ANNEXES: A – Secretary’s Certificate B – Order/Grant of Extension (if any) C-series – Tax/Income/Financial Documents D-series – Bank/Remittance Records E-series – Contracts/Invoices/ORs F-series – KYC/EDD/Policy Extracts G – Records-Custodian Affidavit(s)

10) Timing, filing, and service tips

Compute the deadline from actual receipt of subpoena. If you need time for bank certifications or foreign records, move for extension early (before the lapse).
File where the subpoena directs (physically or via accepted electronic channel if allowed). Keep proof of filing and proof of service to the complainant/AMLC.
Paginate annexes and use an Annex Index. Large data (CSV/PDF dumps) should be summarized in a transaction map with references to page numbers.

11) How to present financials persuasively

One-page dashboard: a timeline aligning inflows/outflows with legitimate events (salary dates, loan drawdowns, property completion).
Reconciliation table: opening balance + legitimate inflows − legitimate outflows = closing balance, tied to bank statements.
Narrative footnotes: explain high-value or unusual items (e.g., bulk cash deposit explained by cashier’s check proceeds cashed out).
Visuals (even simple): charts showing seasonality or business cycles (e.g., agri harvest, construction progress billings).

12) Special considerations

STR/CTR confidentiality. STRs are confidential regulatory filings; treat extracts with care. If the complaint relies on STR narratives, emphasize that suspicion triggers reporting but doesn’t prove ML.
Bank secrecy and AMLC powers. AMLA allows inquiry into deposits subject to judicial authorization in most cases. If evidence appears obtained without required authority, raise and preserve the objection.
Cross-border flows. For remittances or offshore accounts, include purpose-of-remittance forms, loan agreements, foreign bank letters, and apostilled translations.
Third-party payments. Explain agency/escrow relationships; attach escrow letters or settlement statements to avoid the appearance of layering.

13) Quality-control checklist before filing

Correct caption, docket number, and office
Authority to sign (individual/corporate) attached
Deadline computed; extension (if any) granted and annexed
Each material allegation admitted/denied with explanation
Clear timeline and reconciliation tables included
All exhibits legible, authenticated, and indexed
Custodian/IT/Accountant supporting affidavits attached
Objections (illegality, hearsay, privacy) expressly reserved
Proper notarization/jurat before authorized officer
Proof of service on complainant/AMLC

14) For covered institutions (bonus section)

If you’re a bank/EMI/securities broker/other covered person named as respondent:

Show your AML program: governance, risk-based approach, and case-handling SOPs.
Document your decisioning: why an STR was (or was not) filed; thresholds; alerts and disposition notes; four-eyes approvals.
Vendor systems: explain monitoring rules, data quality controls, tuning history, and calibration changes relevant to the period.
Training and oversight: annual AML training logs, Board minutes for AML updates, and compliance testing/audit reports excerpts.

15) Final thought

Treat the counter-affidavit as a forensic narrative: a concise story, backed by numbers and paper, that makes the prosecutor comfortable dismissing the case now, not after trial. Clarity + corroboration wins.

If you want, I can tailor the template to your specific facts (individual vs. corporate, alleged predicate offense, and the transaction pattern) and draft the exhibits index you’ll need.