When money has just been sent to a scammer’s bank account or e-wallet in the Philippines, speed matters more than almost anything else. The legal remedy people often call a “freeze order” can mean two different things: an immediate temporary hold by a bank or e-wallet under the Anti-Financial Account Scamming Act, and a formal court freeze order issued by the Court of Appeals upon petition of the Anti-Money Laundering Council. This article explains the difference, what a victim can actually request, which offices are involved, what documents to prepare, and how to move fast enough to give investigators a realistic chance of tracing or preserving the funds.
What a Freeze Order Means in Philippine Scam Cases
In ordinary language, victims say: “Please freeze the scammer’s account.” In Philippine law and banking practice, that request may fall under either of these remedies:
| Remedy | Who acts first | How long it can last | Best used when |
|---|---|---|---|
| Temporary holding of disputed funds under Republic Act No. 12010, the Anti-Financial Account Scamming Act or AFASA | Bank, e-wallet, or other BSP-supervised institution | Initial hold of up to 5 calendar days; extension may bring total holding to up to 30 calendar days unless extended by court | You just sent money to a scam-linked account or e-wallet and need urgent tracing or holding |
| Freeze order under Republic Act No. 9160, the Anti-Money Laundering Act or AMLA, as amended | Court of Appeals, upon verified ex parte petition by AMLC | Effective immediately for 20 days; may be extended after summary hearing, but total period generally cannot exceed 6 months | The account or property is probably related to an unlawful activity or money laundering, and AMLC has enough basis to petition the Court of Appeals |
The first important reality: a private victim does not personally file an AMLA freeze order petition in the Court of Appeals. Under AMLA procedure, the Republic, through the AMLC and represented by the Office of the Solicitor General, files the verified petition. The Court of Appeals then determines whether probable cause exists. The Supreme Court has emphasized that the AMLC is the petitioner before the Court of Appeals, and the Court of Appeals evaluates whether there is probable cause to issue the freeze order. (Supreme Court E-Library)
For most scam victims, the fastest practical route is therefore not to “file a freeze order case” personally. It is to immediately report the disputed transaction to the source bank or e-wallet and request temporary holding and coordinated verification under AFASA, while also filing a cybercrime or criminal complaint so law enforcement can coordinate with the BSP, AMLC, banks, and e-wallet providers.
Legal Basis for Freezing or Holding Scam-Linked Accounts
Anti-Financial Account Scamming Act: RA 12010 of 2024
RA 12010, or AFASA, was enacted specifically to address scams involving financial accounts, including bank accounts and e-wallets. It covers “financial accounts” such as deposit accounts, transaction accounts, credit card accounts, e-wallets, and other accounts used for financial products and services under the jurisdiction of the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas. (Lawphil)
AFASA penalizes money muling, which includes using, borrowing, allowing the use of, buying, renting, selling, lending, or recruiting others to use financial accounts to receive, transfer, withdraw, or move proceeds known to come from crimes or social engineering schemes. It also penalizes social engineering schemes, such as pretending to act for a bank or using electronic communications to obtain another person’s sensitive account information. (Lawphil)
For victims, AFASA’s most useful provision is Section 7 on temporary holding of funds. It allows institutions to temporarily hold funds subject of a disputed transaction for a BSP-prescribed period not exceeding 30 calendar days, unless extended by a competent court. A transaction may be treated as disputed when the institution has reasonable ground to believe it is unusual, has no clear economic purpose, comes from an illegal source or unlawful activity, or was facilitated through social engineering. (Lawphil)
BSP Circular No. 1215, Series of 2025, implements this system. It provides that BSP-supervised institutions may temporarily hold disputed funds for not more than 30 calendar days, including both the initial and extended holding periods, and that any further extension requires a court of competent jurisdiction. (Bureau of the Treasury)
Initial and Extended Holding Under BSP Circular No. 1215
The BSP rules break the holding process into practical stages:
Initial holding: If the disputed funds are still within the same institution, the institution may initially hold them for not more than 5 calendar days. If the funds were transferred to another bank or e-wallet, the source institution may send an initial holding request to the receiving institution and later institutions in the transaction chain. (Bureau of the Treasury)
Extended holding: The initial hold may be extended by not more than 25 calendar days if available information gives reasonable grounds to believe the funds are likely disputed funds and more time is needed to complete coordinated verification. The source account owner should submit supporting documents such as a sworn complaint, affidavit, police report, or other evidence within the initial holding period, unless the industry protocol allows otherwise. (Bureau of the Treasury)
Coordinated verification: Banks and e-wallets involved in the transaction chain must trace, verify, and validate the transaction, including sharing information with involved institutions, reviewing affidavits or police reports, checking fraud indicators, and communicating with account owners. (Bureau of the Treasury)
AFASA also creates accountability. A BSP-supervised institution that fails to temporarily hold disputed funds when required may be liable for loss or damage, including restitution to the account owner; but a bank or e-wallet that improperly holds funds beyond the allowed period may face administrative action. (Lawphil)
AMLA Freeze Orders Through the Court of Appeals
A formal AMLA freeze order is different. It is an extraordinary, interim court remedy used to prevent the dissipation, transfer, removal, conversion, or disposal of property suspected to be proceeds of, or related to, unlawful activity. In Republic v. Ongpin, G.R. No. 207078, the Supreme Court described a freeze order as a preemptive relief that temporarily preserves monetary instruments or property while the State builds its case. (Supreme Court E-Library)
Under the current rule discussed by the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals may issue a freeze order upon a verified ex parte petition by the AMLC and a finding of probable cause. The order is effective immediately for 20 days. Within that period, the Court of Appeals conducts a summary hearing, with notice to the parties, to decide whether to modify, lift, or extend the freeze order; any extension generally cannot exceed a total period of 6 months. (Supreme Court E-Library)
The Supreme Court has also set safeguards for “related accounts.” In its 2025 explanation of freeze orders, the Court said the AMLA can cover related and materially linked accounts, but the AMLC petition must describe the accounts and amounts, the Court of Appeals must independently find probable cause, and the freeze should be limited to the amount or value probably representing proceeds of a predicate offense. (Supreme Court of the Philippines)
Step-by-Step Guide: How to Request Holding or Freezing of Scam-Linked Accounts
1. Report to your own bank or e-wallet immediately
Use the fraud hotline, in-app report function, emergency customer service channel, or the institution’s Financial Consumer Protection Assistance Mechanism. Under the BSP rules, complaint-initiated holding starts with a complaint by the source account owner through the institution’s 24/7 fraud reporting channel. (Bureau of the Treasury)
Say this clearly:
“I am reporting a disputed transaction caused by a scam/social engineering scheme. Please initiate temporary holding of disputed funds and coordinated verification under RA 12010 and BSP Circular No. 1215. Please provide a case reference number and send a holding request to the receiving institution.”
Do not wait for a notarized affidavit before making the first report. The first report is time-sensitive. Formal documents can follow within the initial holding period.
2. Give transaction details that banks can actually trace
Provide the exact details needed to identify the transaction:
- Date and time of transfer
- Amount
- Source account name and number or wallet number
- Beneficiary account name, account number, wallet number, or mobile number
- Bank, e-wallet, or payment platform used
- Transaction reference number
- Screenshots of confirmation receipts
- Chat messages, SMS, emails, social media links, marketplace listing, QR code, or payment instructions
- Any name, number, username, page, website, or delivery address used by the scammer
BSP Circular No. 1215 requires institutions to verify basic information such as transaction reference number, source account, amount, mode of transfer, date and time, receiving institutions, and beneficiary details if known. (Bureau of the Treasury)
3. Ask whether funds were held, partially held, transferred, or withdrawn
After the first report, ask for an update in these exact categories:
- Were the disputed funds successfully held?
- Was only part of the amount held?
- Were the funds already withdrawn?
- Were the funds transferred to another institution?
- Was an initial holding request sent to the receiving institution?
- What documents are needed to support extended holding?
The receiving institution should inform the source institution whether the funds are fully or partially intact, withdrawn, transferred onward, or otherwise traceable. (Bureau of the Treasury)
4. Submit a sworn complaint, affidavit, or police report within the initial holding period
To support an extension beyond the initial hold, prepare a short, clear affidavit or sworn complaint explaining:
- Who you are and what account you used.
- How the scammer contacted you.
- What representations were made.
- Why you believed the transaction was legitimate at the time.
- The exact amount, date, time, and account details.
- Why you now believe the transaction was fraudulent.
- What evidence is attached.
The BSP rules specifically mention documents such as a sworn complaint, affidavit, police report, or other supporting document detailing the circumstances of the transaction and why the source account owner believes it is probably disputed. (Bureau of the Treasury)
5. File a cybercrime or criminal complaint
For online scams, file with the PNP Anti-Cybercrime Group, NBI Cybercrime Division, or Cybercrime Investigation and Coordinating Center. The BSP itself tells scam and fraud victims to report to law enforcement agencies such as the PNP, NBI, or CICC because they can commence formal investigations and apprehend scammers in criminal cases.
The NBI Citizens Charter for computer-crime victims shows that the complainant may proceed to the Cybercrime Division, fill out a complaint sheet, undergo preliminary interview and initial investigation, execute sworn statements or submit affidavits, and provide supporting documents; the listed government fee for that investigative assistance is none. (National Bureau of Investigation)
For online scams, likely charges may include estafa under Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code, cybercrime liability under RA 10175 when committed through information and communications technology, access device fraud under RA 8484 as amended by RA 11449 where account credentials or access devices are involved, and AFASA offenses such as money muling or social engineering.
6. Escalate to BSP if your bank or e-wallet is unresponsive
The BSP Consumer Assistance Mechanism is a second-level recourse. The BSP requires consumers to report first to the bank or BSP-supervised institution’s own consumer assistance mechanism, then escalate through BSP Online Buddy or other BSP channels if dissatisfied with the institution’s response.
The BSP page on consumer assistance says BOB can automatically refer concerns to the involved financial institution, and email or postal complaints should include a summary, requested resolution, contact details, the complaint filed with the financial institution, the institution’s reply if any, and supporting documents. (Bureau of the Treasury)
Use BSP escalation when:
- Your bank refuses to issue a case reference number.
- The bank delays despite a fresh scam transaction.
- You cannot get confirmation that a holding request was sent.
- The institution gives only generic replies while the initial holding period is running.
- You believe the bank failed to act despite complete transaction details.
7. Ask investigators to coordinate with AMLC when money laundering indicators are present
A formal Court of Appeals freeze order requires AMLC action. Scam cases may become AMLC-relevant when there are indicators such as multiple victims, multiple mule accounts, rapid layering of funds, large amounts, syndicate activity, cross-border transfers, crypto conversion through regulated entities, or connection to other unlawful activities.
The AMLA treats swindling under Articles 315 and 316 of the Revised Penal Code as unlawful activities or predicate offenses for money laundering purposes. (Anti-Money Laundering Council) That matters because a freeze order under AMLA requires probable cause that the monetary instrument or property is related to an unlawful activity.
Documents to Prepare
| Document or evidence | Why it matters | Practical note |
|---|---|---|
| Government ID | Confirms you are the source account owner or authorized representative | Passport, driver’s license, PhilSys ID, UMID, PRC ID, or similar ID |
| Transaction receipt | Identifies the transfer for tracing | Include reference number, time, amount, and recipient details |
| Bank or e-wallet case reference | Proves prompt reporting | Ask for this during the first call or in-app report |
| Screenshots of chats, SMS, emails, ads, pages, or websites | Shows deception or social engineering | Save original links and usernames before they disappear |
| Sworn complaint or affidavit | Supports extended holding and criminal investigation | Keep it factual and chronological |
| Police, NBI, or PNP report | Often helps banks justify extended holding | File quickly; do not wait for the bank to finish its review |
| Proof of ownership of account | Shows you are entitled to complain | Bank statement, app profile, account certificate, or transaction history |
| Authorization or SPA | Needed if someone else files for you | Especially important for OFWs, foreigners abroad, or elderly victims |
If the victim is abroad, a Philippine consulate can notarize affidavits, special powers of attorney, and similar private documents for use in the Philippines; personal appearance of the signatory is generally required, and a consular-notarized document can be used in the Philippines. (Philippine Embassy) In some countries, a locally notarized affidavit with an apostille may also be accepted for use in the Philippines, depending on the country and the receiving office’s requirements.
Timelines You Should Know
| Action | Typical legal or practical timing |
|---|---|
| Report scam to bank/e-wallet fraud channel | Immediately, ideally within minutes or hours |
| Initial AFASA holding | Up to 5 calendar days |
| Submission of affidavit, sworn complaint, police report, or supporting document | Within the initial holding period, unless the applicable protocol allows otherwise |
| Extended AFASA holding | Additional period of up to 25 calendar days |
| Total AFASA temporary holding by institution | Not more than 30 calendar days unless extended by court |
| AMLA Court of Appeals freeze order | Effective immediately for 20 days |
| AMLA summary hearing | Within the 20-day period |
| Maximum AMLA freeze order period | Generally not more than 6 months |
| NBI computer-crime complaint intake under Citizens Charter | Listed processing time: about 1 hour and 10 minutes, with no government fee for the listed assistance |
Common Bottlenecks and Real-World Problems
The money may already be gone
Instant transfers are the hardest cases. Mule accounts often move funds within minutes to another wallet, another bank, cash-out channel, or crypto pathway. Even if nothing can be held in the first recipient account, the report still matters because the transaction chain may show later accounts, repeated victims, or syndicate patterns.
Screenshots are helpful but not enough
Screenshots prove context, but banks trace by transaction reference numbers, account identifiers, timestamps, and verified account ownership. Always include the actual transaction details, not just the conversation with the scammer.
Bank secrecy and data privacy do not give victims automatic access to the scammer’s identity
AFASA, AMLA, and cybercrime procedures allow regulated institutions and competent authorities to share or inquire into financial account information in specific legal settings. They do not mean a private complainant automatically receives the full name, address, KYC documents, or transaction history of the suspected mule account. AFASA allows BSP investigation and information-sharing with competent authorities for enforcement and prosecution, while also restricting unauthorized disclosure of financial account information. (Lawphil)
False or malicious reports can create liability
AFASA punishes malicious reporting. A person who reports completely unwarranted or false information in bad faith, resulting in temporary holding of funds, may face imprisonment, fine, or both. (Lawphil) This does not mean victims should be afraid to report genuine scams. It means the report should be truthful, specific, and supported by evidence.
The receiving account owner may contest the hold
The beneficiary account owner has rights. BSP rules allow a beneficiary whose funds were temporarily held to challenge or request lifting of the hold by providing affidavits, sworn statements, police reports, proof of purpose, proof of relationship between the parties, source of funds, or other evidence showing the transaction was legitimate. If substantiated, the institution should lift the temporary holding even before the holding period lapses. (Bureau of the Treasury)
Barangay proceedings are usually not enough for urgent account holding
A barangay blotter or barangay mediation record may help show that you acted promptly, but online scams involving bank accounts, e-wallets, identity theft, hacking, phishing, or mule accounts are usually better handled through the bank’s fraud channel, PNP ACG, NBI Cybercrime Division, CICC, and, when appropriate, prosecutors and AMLC-related channels.
What to Say in Your Bank or E-Wallet Report
Use a short, direct message:
I am the source account owner. I am reporting a disputed transaction caused by an online scam/social engineering scheme. Please initiate temporary holding of disputed funds and coordinated verification under RA 12010, the Anti-Financial Account Scamming Act, and BSP Circular No. 1215.
Transaction details: Amount: ₱____ Date and time: ____ Transaction reference number: ____ Source account/wallet: ____ Beneficiary account/wallet/mobile number: ____ Receiving institution: ____
Please provide a case reference number, confirm whether the funds are intact or have moved, and transmit the necessary holding request to the receiving institution and any subsequent institution in the transaction chain.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can I personally file a freeze order against a scammer’s bank account?
Not an AMLA freeze order in the Court of Appeals. Under AMLA procedure, the AMLC files the petition through the proper government representation, and the Court of Appeals decides whether probable cause exists. As a victim, your practical role is to report quickly to your bank or e-wallet, file a criminal or cybercrime complaint, and provide evidence that may support AFASA holding, law enforcement investigation, BSP inquiry, or AMLC action.
What is the fastest way to freeze or hold scam funds?
Report immediately to your own bank or e-wallet’s 24/7 fraud channel and request temporary holding of disputed funds under AFASA. This is usually faster than waiting for a formal court freeze order because the bank or e-wallet may initiate the initial hold and coordinated verification process if the transaction fits the rule.
How long can a bank or e-wallet hold scam-linked funds?
Under AFASA and BSP Circular No. 1215, the institution’s temporary holding period can be up to 30 calendar days total, including the initial and extended holding periods, unless a court extends it. The initial holding period is generally up to 5 calendar days, with a possible extension of up to 25 calendar days if justified.
How long does a Court of Appeals freeze order last?
A formal AMLA freeze order is effective immediately for 20 days. Within that period, the Court of Appeals conducts a summary hearing to decide whether to lift, modify, or extend it. The total period generally cannot exceed 6 months unless another proper court order, such as an asset preservation order in a related case, applies.
Can the bank return my money automatically?
Not always. If funds are intact and the coordinated verification process supports your claim, release or recovery may be possible under the institution’s process and applicable rules. If the funds were already withdrawn or transferred onward, you may need criminal investigation, further tracing, civil action, restitution, forfeiture proceedings, or action against institutions if there was failure to comply with legal duties.
Does AFASA apply to e-wallets like GCash or Maya?
Yes, AFASA covers e-wallets and other accounts used to avail of financial products or services offered by institutions under BSP jurisdiction. The law specifically includes e-wallets in the definition of financial accounts. (Lawphil)
Will the bank give me the scammer’s full name and address?
Usually not directly. Banks and e-wallets must follow bank secrecy, data privacy, AMLA, AFASA, cybercrime, and BSP rules. Account information may be shared with competent authorities under proper legal processes, but private victims should not expect unrestricted disclosure of another person’s KYC records.
What if I am an OFW or foreigner outside the Philippines?
Report first through the bank or e-wallet’s online fraud channel. Then prepare a clear affidavit and, if someone in the Philippines will file or follow up for you, issue a special power of attorney. Documents signed abroad may need consular notarization or apostille, depending on where they are executed and what the receiving office requires.
What if the scammer used a foreign bank account?
A Philippine AFASA hold or AMLA freeze order generally operates through Philippine institutions and Philippine proceedings. If funds moved abroad, investigators may need international cooperation, mutual legal assistance, coordination with foreign banks, or foreign law enforcement channels. Still, the Philippine transaction records and complaint are important because they establish the starting point of the fund trail.
Is a police blotter enough?
A blotter is usually not enough by itself. For bank holding and extended verification, stronger documents include a sworn complaint, affidavit, police or NBI complaint record, transaction receipts, screenshots, account details, and a clear chronology. For prosecution, investigators and prosecutors will need admissible evidence showing deception, transfer of funds, account involvement, and identity or participation of suspects.
Key Takeaways
- A private victim usually cannot personally file an AMLA freeze order petition in the Court of Appeals; AMLC files that petition when there is legal basis.
- The fastest victim-facing remedy is often temporary holding of disputed funds under AFASA through the bank or e-wallet.
- Report within minutes or hours, not days.
- Ask for temporary holding, coordinated verification, a case reference number, and confirmation that the receiving institution was notified.
- Submit a sworn complaint, affidavit, police report, and transaction evidence within the initial holding period to support extension.
- File with PNP ACG, NBI Cybercrime Division, or CICC for formal investigation.
- Escalate to BSP CAM if the bank or e-wallet fails to act properly after you reported through its own consumer assistance channel.
- AMLA freeze orders require probable cause, Court of Appeals action, and safeguards for account holders; they are powerful but not automatic.
- Even if the first account is empty, prompt reporting can still help trace the transaction chain and support criminal, civil, regulatory, or forfeiture remedies.