RA 3019 --- ANTI-GRAFT AND CORRUPT PRACTICES ACT The bulk of the violation here is found in Section 3, where

you have so many enumerations of acts covered by this law. Given in past bar examinations by way of problems are situations covered by Subsections A,B,D, in so far as the 1 year period stated there is concerned. Subsection E Section most widely practices of public officers.In the 3.Corrupt invoked provision of this law. Subsectionto acts or omissions Iof public officers already addition G and Subsection
penalized by existing law, the following shall constitute corrupt practices of any public officer and are hereby declared to be unlawful:

In subsection I, you must be careful; the only way the PO involved may avoid incurring a violation of the AntiGraft & Corrupt Practices act is for him to divest himself of any interest in the enterprise applying before the board, panel, or group where the public officer is involved, OR resigned his membership in that board, panel, or group. Subsection I expressly provides that even though the PO possessing conflicting interest in the applicant enterprise voted against the application, still the law is violated. But that provision of Subsection I covers only such application requiring the exercise of discretion on the part of the board, panel, or group in which the PO is a member. So if the application would require only ministerial act on the part of that board, panel, or group, this subsection I of Sec 3 of the law does not govern. The most widely violated provision is that of Subsection E causing undue injury to another, private or public, by giving unwarranted benefit though manifest partiality, evident bad faith, gross inexcusable negligence. About this injury, it is already ruled by the SC that the injury contemplated here must be quantifiable in money. It has reference to material injury, not to any damages which are subject of speculation. So the complainant here cannot invoke its violation, only because he suffers moral damages or because he suffered some temperate or moderate damages. The damages here must be one that is quantifiable in money. Secondly here, one of the predicate of the complaint under this subsection of the law is that of evident bad faith. The injury caused was brought about by evident bad faith on the part of the public officer accused of the violation. Although violations of this law are mala prohibita and in crimes mala prohibita, good faith or lack of criminal intent is not a defense, and therefore irrelevant or immaterial, yet in this violation of the law where the complaint is based on alleged evident bad faith, the accused as an exception, should be allowed to adduce evidence of good faith or lack of criminal intent in causing the damage. SC SAID that if would not be allowed, the accused would be denied the chance to defend himself because the only way to controvert the alleged evident bad faith is to adduce evidence of good faith and of lack of criminal intent. {You take note of this exception. You must have planted in your minds now that in bar exams, most of the problems given refer to situation to exceptions to the rule.} In that subsection (i) where the member of the board, panel, or group voted against the application that has conflicting interest with the applicant enterprise, this
Page 1

(a) Persuading, inducing or influencing another public officer to perform an act constituting a violation of rules and regulations duly promulgated by competent authority or an offense in connection with the official duties of the latter, or allowing himself to be persuaded, induced, or influenced to commit such violation or offense. (b) Directly or indirectly requesting or receiving any gift, present, share, percentage, or benefit, for himself or for any other person, in connection with any contract or transaction between the Government and any other part, wherein the public officer in his official capacity has to intervene under the law. (d) Accepting or having any member of his family accept employment in a private enterprise which has pending official business with him during the pendency thereof or within one year after its termination. (e) Causing any undue injury to any party, including the Government, or giving any private party any unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference in the discharge of his official administrative or judicial functions through manifest partiality, evident bad faith or gross inexcusable negligence. This provision shall apply to officers and employees of offices or government corporations charged with the grant of licenses or permits or other concessions. (g) Entering, on behalf of the Government, into any contract or transaction manifestly and grossly disadvantageous to the same, whether or not the public officer profited or will profit thereby. (i) Directly or indirectly becoming interested, for personal gain, or having a material interest in any transaction or act requiring the approval of a board, panel or group of which he is a member, and which exercises discretion in such approval, even if he votes against the same or does not participate in the action of the board, committee, panel or group. Interest for personal gain shall be presumed against those public officers responsible for the approval of manifestly unlawful, inequitable, or irregular transaction or acts by the board, panel or group to which they belong. The person giving the gift, present, share, percentage or benefit referred to in subparagraphs (b) and (c); or offering or giving to the public officer the employment mentioned in subparagraph (d); or urging the divulging or untimely release of the confidential information referred to in subparagraph (k) of this section shall, together with the offending public officer, be punished under Section nine of this Act and shall be permanently or temporarily disqualified in the discretion of the Court, from transacting business in any form with the Government.

was given in the bar several times. The only way to escape liabilities is to resign or divest himself of the interest in the applicant enterprise. But the provision must apply first, and that provision will apply only if the application involved the exercise of discretion. In a case involving the officers of the Cebu International Airport for violation of this provision, it was shown that the act taken by the board, panel, or group was merely ministerial because the transaction has already been consummated. So what they do is just to approve this ministerially, because actually the procured materials where the violation of the law was incurred has already [resulted]. So SC said this provision is not violated because the act done by this board is already ministerial. The transaction has already been consummated or is implemented. So they can only be held administratively and civilly liable but not criminally. {be careful about this!} *Violations of the Anti-graft and corrupt practices act are mala prohibita. So except in that particular situation in subsection (e) of Section 3, evidence of good faith or lack of criminal intent is not a defense. The fact that the government benefited out of the prohibited transaction is no defense at all. SC categorically pronounced: In crimes mala prohibita, the law is not interested in the effect of the prohibited act, but simply from the fact that the prohibited act was VOLUNTARILY committed. That being so, criminal liability attaches. So where a municipal mayor who was elected into office found the coffers of the local government empty, nothing to pay the salary of the employees of the municipal government, no money to pay the basic services. He rented out a part of the municipal building. Nobody was interested to rent because they have to renovate the place. So his son made an offer to the municipal council which conducted the hearing that because there is no interested bidder, he conducted an offer. It was found to be the most advantageous because the son of the mayor would convert the place into a canteen and a convenience store without any centavo coming from the municipality. The municipality after all was bankrupt. So he will advance the {amount} will operate the place, and he will only get whatever the amount he had advanced. Any profit earned out of the operation therefore will inure to the municipality. He announced that he is only willing to do this because his father is the mayor and he wanted the father to be able to attend to the basic services needed by the constituent of the municipality. In fact, the other parties who wanted the same concession challenged the legality of the contract before the local RTC. The local RTC dismissed the complaint. So he instead raised the axed against the mayor, filed with the SB a criminal case for violation of RA 3019, based on the

fact that he contracted with his son involving the property of the municipality. SB convicted him. He appealed to the SC. SC affirmed the conviction. It is enough that the act is prohibited and that the public officer voluntarily performed the act, that means w/out duress only. The high court said: In crimes MP, the law is not interested in the effects of the law on the prohibited act. The law is interested only in whether the act was voluntarily done or not. If voluntarily done, then criminal liability attaches.

So you should know the important point there that the act was done to benefit the government, as long as the act is prohibited under this law, it is therefore a malum prohibitum if is from the voluntarily doing of the act which will violate the law, that will be controlling. Under Sec 8 of this law (RA3019), in the investigation of the public officer charged for having accumulated illgotten wealth, his bank accounts where this funds or his nominee or his dummy may be examined. In a case where the bank account of the public officer under investigation or being examined, the Bank refused access to the records invoking the Law on Secrecy of Bank Deposits (R.A. 1405). An issue was brought before the SC. SC ruled the examination may proceed. This is an exception to those already provided in the law itself. Since the purpose here is to discover the ill-gotten wealth, the provision of the law would be useless if after all the bank deposit of the public officer involved cannot be examined. So the high court said: Aside from the exception to the law on secrecy of bank deposit, this should authorize under the AntiGraft & Corrupt Practices Act should be considered only as exception to this prohibition under the law. so the public officer being examined for any ill-gotten wealth cannot invoke the Law on Secrecy on Bank Deposit to prevent an examination of his bank accounts. Those of his wife, those of his children below 18 years of age, those who were assignees, nominees, or dummies. Violation of this law now prescribes in 15 years, but this will only refer to violation committed after the amendment was made in 1982. Before this, the prescriptive period for the violation is only 10 years. This is the period you will apply before the amendment in 1982 extending the prescription to 15 years. Another important aspect under Section 13 of this law --- That any public officer charged for having violated this law shall be suspended from public office upon a finding of the court of a valid information filed against him. In view of this provision, jurisprudence is to the
Page 2

effect that the suspension is mandatory but not automatic. The Court which is now exclusively the SB for violation of this law must first determine the merit of the accusation against the public officer charged for violation of this law. That means there should be a hearing. Public officer accused of the violation must be given notice to explain why he should not be suspended from public officer pending the investigation of the criminal case against him pursuant to Section 13 of this law. The SB cannot routinarily issue an order of suspension. The suspension is mandatory but it is not automatic meaning to say, upon the filing of the information the court will issue the order of suspension applying that will issue a warrant of arrest, that is not so because of that provision requiring the court to give details of information filed. Only after the court has determined that there is a meritorious information filed for violation of this law may the court, which is now the SB, may issue the Order of suspension. The Order of suspension shall be for 90 days. It shall cover whatever public office is held by the accused at the time the order was issued, even though that public office is not the office where the violation was committed.

conform to the order of suspension, actually they are the ones who will implement the order of suspension, not the sheriff of the SB. So if the accused is a member of the House of Representative or the Senate, the sheriff of the SB will serve the order of suspension to the Speaker of the House or the Senate President for him to set the mechanism of the legislative body on the manner of suspending members thereof. If they do not want to suspend, that is the end of the order. This is so even when a member of the legislative is the one involved. SB has jurisdiction to order the suspension.

So as long as the accused holds a public office, the order of suspension will apply to that public position, even though the violation of the Anti-Graft & Corrupt Practices Act was not committed in that office. It is already a decided situation. Where a public officer committed a violation of this law when he was a member of the Provincial Board, have instead he ran for Vice Governor and he won, so he held office for Vice Governor. In the meantime the case against him for violation of this law was filed with the SB. SB after the hearing, the so-called pre-suspension hearing that you must have learned in your study of administrative law, must be conducted and thereupon, SB issued the order of suspension. The suspension was challenged because it is being applied to an office held by the accused as Vice Governor whereas the alleged violation of this law was committed in the Office of the Provincial Board while he was a member thereof. So he claimed he cannot be suspended from the public office of the Vice Governor. SC ruled whatever public office is there at the time the order of suspension was issued, the accused must be suspended therefrom. The SB was acting within its jurisdiction in ordering the suspension even by those occupying the coordinate department of the government. SB would be acting within its jurisdiction, but the same cannot just be implemented. The head of the coordinating department of the government must
Page 3

R.A. 7080 ANTI PLUNDER LAW The most discussed law these days is Republic Act 7080 otherwise known as the law on plunder. Seen as a deterrent to prevent public officials from stealing money from the government, the plunder law was passed in 1991 with the most significant signatory being one Senator Joseph Estrada. In this edition of the Law Professor, we shall now examine the intricacies of the Plunder Law. What is plunder and how is it committed? According to Section 2 of RA 7080, plunder is committed when a public officer who, by himself or in connivance with members of his family, relatives by affinity or consanguinity, business associates, subordinates or other persons, amasses, accumulates or acquires illgotten wealth through a combination or series of overt or criminal acts as described in Section 1 (d) of RA 7080 in the aggregate amount or total value of at least Fifty million pesos (P50,000,000.00). In addition, any person who participated with the said public officer in the commission of plunder shall likewise be punished. The criminal acts described in Section 1 (d) are as follows: 1. Through misappropriation, conversion, misuse, or malversation of public funds or raids on the public treasury; 2. By receiving, directly or indirectly, any commission, gift, share, percentage, kickbacks or any/or entity in connection with any government contract or project or by reason of the office or position of the public officer concerned; 3. By the illegal or fraudulent conveyance or disposition of assets belonging to the National government or any of its subdivisions, agencies or instrumentalities or government-owned or controlled corporations and their subsidiaries; 4. By obtaining, receiving or accepting directly or indirectly any shares of stock, equity or any other form of interest or participation including the promise of future employment in any business enterprise or undertaking; 5. By establishing agricultural, industrial or commercial monopolies or other combinations and/or implementation of decrees and orders intended to benefit particular persons or special interests; or, 6. By taking undue advantage of official position, authority, relationship, connection or influence to unjustly enrich himself or themselves at the expense and to the damage and prejudice of the Filipino people and the Republic of the Philippines. In the original version of RA 7080, the offender was liable only if the aggregate amount amassed is at least Seventy-five million pesos (P75,000,000.00) with the corresponding penalty of life Imprisonment with perpetual absolute disqualification from holding any public office. However, RA 7659 (The Death Penalty

Law) amended Section 2 of RA 7080, and lowered the amount to Fifty million pesos and increased the imposable penalty to death, to wit: Sec. 12. Section 2 of Republic Act No. 7080 (An Act Defining and Penalizing the Crime of Plunder) is hereby amended to read as follows: Sec. 2. Definition of the Crime of Plunder; Penalties. Any public officer who, by himself or in connivance with members of his family, relatives by affinity or consanguinity, business associates, subordinates or other persons, amasses, accumulates or acquires illgotten wealth through a combination or series of overt criminal acts as described in Section 1 (d) hereof in the aggregate amount or total value of at least Fifty million pesos (P50,000,000.00) shall be guilty of the crime of plunder and shall be punished by reclusion perpetua to death. Any person who participated with the said public officer in the commission of an offense contributing to the crime of plunder shall likewise be punished for such offense. In the imposition of penalties, the degree of participation and the attendance of mitigating and extenuating circumstances, as provided by the Revised Penal Code, shall be considered by the court. The court shall declare any and all ill-gotten wealth and their interests and other incomes and assets including the properties and shares of stocks derived from the deposit or investment thereof forfeited in favor of the State. Section 4 of RA 7080 also prescribes the method for proving that the crime of plunder was committed. It states that for purposes of establishing the crime of plunder, it shall not be necessary to prove each and every criminal act done by the accused in furtherance of the scheme or conspiracy to amass, accumulate or acquire ill-gotten wealth, it being sufficient to establish beyond reasonable doubt a pattern of overt or criminal acts indicative of the overall unlawful scheme or conspiracy.

For the crime of plunder to be committed, the accused public officer must have amassed ill-gotten wealth of not less than 50 million pesos. If the public officer therefore after having amassed 49 million and so many hundreds already stop, this crime cannot be incurred. The second requisite: The amount must be incurred by at least 2 acts covered by different paragraphs under Section 1(d) of the law. At least 2 of the said paragraphs must be violated. This was the interpretation made by the SC because the law provides for a combination or series of overt or criminal acts. So since the law used the word combination, 2 at least is required. So if the P50 million was accumulated by one act of receiving kickback, that cannot give rise to the crime of plunder. There must be another commission of subsection d Section 1 - the second one, that is already obtaining or accumulating ill gotten wealth. But if the ill-gotten wealth was accumulated through a series of acts, the series of acts maybe under the same enumeration. If
Page 4

there are only 2, it must be fall under different paragraphs or enumeration in that subsection d. So if the same act was committed twice, that cannot bring about the crime of plunder - Important word COMBINATION. Another important aspect of this crime: The violation is held to be a malum in se. That means the criminal intent must be established in accumulating the illgotten wealth of at least 50 million pesos for it to be punished.

Page 5

R.A. 9160 ANTI MONEY LAUNDERING ACT OF 2001 R.A. 9160: The Anti-Money Laundering Act of 2001 was promulgated primarily to allow the examination of bank accounts suspected to be sourced from illegal activities but which otherwise are protected from examination or freezing under existing laws on secrecy of bank deposits. R.A. 1405 (An Act Prohibiting Disclosure of or Inquiry into Deposits with any Banking Institution and Providing Penalty Therefor) was promulgated forty-six years ago to encourage people to deposit their money in banking institutions and to discourage private hoarding so that these private funds may be properly utilized to assist in the economic development of the country. Under said law, all deposits of whatever natures which are deposited with banks or banking institutions are considered as of an absolutely confidential nature. Examination of the account is allowed only by way of exception in four (4) cases: a) upon written permission of the depositor; b) in cases of impeachment; c) upon order of a competent court in cases of bribery or dereliction of duty of public officials; or d) in cases where the money deposited is the subject matter of the litigation. Similarly, R.A. 6426 (An Act Instituting Foreign Currency Deposit System in the Philippines, and for Other Purposes) promulgated on April 4, 1972 extended the veil of absolute confidentiality and immunity from examination to foreign currency deposits with authorized Philippines banks and banking institutions. With the passage of time and the phenomenon referred to as globalization, these laws originally promulgated with a noble purpose were taken advantage of to conceal illegal banking activities such that the Philippines was cited as among the money laundering centers of Asia. Hence international pressure was imposed to goad our government into passing an anti-money laundering law. The key to a proper appreciation of the law is in its definition of terms, particularly: a) Covered Institutions b) Covered Transactions and c) Unlawful Activity. The term covered institutions embraces any institution supervised or regulated by either the Banko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP) or the Insurance Commission and any institution or entity dealing in currency, commodities or financial derivatives supervised or regulated by the Securities & Exchange Commission. Covered Transaction is a single, series or combination of transactions involving a total amount in excess of P4M or its equivalent in foreign currency.

Expressly excluded are transactions involving a person, who at the time of the transaction was a properly identified client and the amount is commensurate with the business or financial capacity of the client or those with an underlying legal or trade obligation. Unlawful Activity refers to any act or omission involving the following crimes/offenses: 1. Kidnapping for ransom; 2. Specified provisions of the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972; 3. Specified provisions of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act; 4. Plunder 5. Robbery and Extortion 6. Jueteng and Masiao; 7. Piracy on the high seas; 8. Qualified theft; 9. Swindling 10.Smuggling; 11.Violations of the Electronic Commerce Act of 2000 (R.A. 8792); 12.Hijacking and other violations under Republic Act No. 6235 destructive arson and murder, acts perpetrated by terrorists; 13.Fraudulent practices and other violations of Securities Regulation Code of 2000; and 14.Felonies or offenses of a similar nature that is punishable under the penal laws of other countries. Accordingly, the crime of money laundering is defined as one whereby the proceeds of an unlawful activity are transacted and made to appear as having originated from a legitimate source. Specifically it is committed by: a. Any person knowing that any monetary instrument or property represented, involves, or relates to the proceeds of any unlawful activity, transacts or attempts to transact, said monetary instrument or property. b. Any person knowing that any monetary instrument or property involves the proceeds of any unlawful activity, perform any act as a result of which he facilitates the offense of money laundering referred to in paragraph (a) above. c. Any person knowing that any monetary instrument or property is required under this Act to be disclosed and filed with the Anti Monetary Laundering Council (AMLC), fails to do so. Other significant provisions: a. Any person may be simultaneously charged with and convicted of both a violation of R.A. 9160 and the crime embraced with the definition of unlawful activity. b. The formation of an Anti-Money Laundering Council composed of the Governor of the BSP, the
Page 6

Commissioner of the Insurance Commission of the Chairman of the SEC. Notably, the law requires that the AMLC must act unanimously in the discharge of its functions. Hence, a vacancy in any of the enumerated offices or absence of any such member will render the AMLC ineffective. c. The AMLC is authorized to, upon determination of probable cause, issue of a freeze order which shall be effective for at least fifteen (15) days and except for the Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court no court shall issue a TRO or writ of injunction against a freeze order issued by the AMLC. d. The AMLC is also authorized to inquire into or examine any particular deposit or investment with a covered institution but upon order of a competent court. Hence, while the AMLC has powers to freeze a suspected account, it cannot examine same without a prior court order. e. The penalty for the attempting to transact a ranges from 7 to 14 years P3M but not more than monetary instrument. crime of transacting or money laundering activity and a fine of not less that double the value of the

Money Laundering: It is a crime where the proceeds of an illegal activity are transacted, consequently making them appear to have come from legitimate sources. It takes the form of the following: 1.) Any person who knows that any monetary instrument or property represents, involves or is related to the proceeds of any illegal activity but transact/tries to transact the instrument/property anyway 2.) A person who, knowing that any monetary instrument or property involves the proceeds from any illegal activity, performs or fails to perform an act a result of which he facilitates the offense of money laundering in the previous paragraph 3.) If a person knows that any monetary instrument or property that is required under the money laundering law (RA 9160, as amended by RA 9194) to be disclosed and filed with the Anti-Money Laundering Council and fails to do so A person can be convicted of both the illegal activity and money laundering. Any case related to the illegal activity, however, is given precedence over the prosecution of any offense or violation of the money laundering law without prejudice to freezing and other remedies. The RTC has jurisdiction over money laundering cases except if the money laundering is committed by public officers or private persons conspiring with them. In this instance, the case will be tried by the Sandiganbayan. Covered Institutions These are the institutions covered under the money laundering law. They refer to: 1.) Banks, non-banks, quasi-banks, trust entities and all other institutions and their subsidiaries and affiliates under the regulation and supervision of the Central Bank 2.) Insurance companies and all other institutions supervised and regulated by the Insurance Commissioner 3.) Securities, dealers, brokers, salesmen, investment houses an other similar entities managing securities or rendering services as investment agents, advisers, consultants; mutual funds, close-end investment companies and other similar entities; forex corporations, money changers, money payment, remittance and transfer companies and other similar entities; and entities administering or otherwise dealing in currency, commodities or financial derivatives based thereon, valuable objects, cash substitutes and other similar monetary instruments or property supervised by the SEC Transactions Covered by RA 9160:

4 7 years imprisonment and a fine of at least P1.5M but to exceed P3M for facilitating the offense of money laundering. 6 months 4 years or a fine of not less than P100,000.00 but not more than P500,000 for failure to disclose a money laundering activity. f. To allay fears of the lawmakers themselves that the law may in the future be used against them (as in the case of the crime of plunder which ERAP is charged with), a safeguard provision was inserted. R.A. 9160 cannot be used for political persecution and no case for violation of R.A. 9160 may be filed during an election period. By and large, the passage of the law (R.A. 9160) is a significant development. The law has several defects but what do you expect when the passage of said law was fast-tracked (very like instant noodles) and extensive debates and deliberations on the bill discouraged and avoided just so both houses of congress are able to meet the deadline. But at least some procedure, however crude, has been put in place as will hopefully deter the use of Philippine banks (and other financial/insurance institutions) as laundry centers.

Offenses punishable under RA9160 are the following: 1.) 2.) 3.) 4.) 5.) The crime of money laundering itself Failure to keep records Failure to report covered transactions Malicious reporting Breach of confidentiality

Page 7

These transactions are reported to the Anti-Money Laundering Council within 5 working days from their occurrence unless the supervising authority prescribes a longer period of up to 10 days. This is an exception to the Bank Secrecy Law, RA 6426, RA 8971 and other similar laws; provided the reporter doesn't communicate any information related to the report to any person. 1.) Covered Transaction A transaction in cash or equivalent monetary instrument where the amount exceeds Php500,000.00 in a single banking day, 2.) Suspicious Transaction A transaction with covered institutions, regardless of the amount involved, if any of the following circumstances are present: a.) No underlying legal or economic justification trade/obligation, purpose

These crimes can be prosecuted together with the violation of RA 9160. Penalties 1.) Imprisonment from 7 to 14 years and a fine of at least Php3M, but not to exceed double the value of the monetary instrument or property involved in the offense for the first form of money laundering (see above.) 2.) Imprisonment from 4 to 7 years and a fine of between Php1.5M to Php3M for the second form of money laundering (same.) 3.) Imprisonment from 6 months to 4 years and/or a fine of Php100,000.00 to Php500,000.00 for the third form of money laundering (same.) 4.) Imprisonment of 6 months to 1 year and/or a fine of Php100,000.00 to Php500,000.00 for failure to keep records. 5.) Imprisonment of 6 months to 4 years and a fine of Php100,000.00 to Php500,000.00 for malicious reporting. Also, the offender can't avail of the Probation Law. If the offender is a corporation or any juridical person, the officers responsible will get this penalty and the juridical entity's license will be revoked. If the offender is an alien, he will be deported after serving sentence. If the offender is a public official or employee, perpetual or temporary absolute disqualification; he will also suffer the same if he refuses or purposely fails to testify. 6.) Imprisonment of 3 to 8 years and a fine of Php 500,000.00 to Php1M for breach of confidentiality. If committed by a media company, the reporter responsible, writer, editor-in-chief, president, publisher and manager will be held liable.

b.) Client isn't properly identified c.) Amount involved isn't commensurate with the client's business or financial capacity d.) Client's transaction is structured in order to avoid being subject to the reporting requirements of the money laundering act e.) Any circumstance related to the transaction is observed to deviate from the client's profits or his past transactions with the covered institution f.) The transaction is related to any illegal activity or offense under the money laundering law and is about to be, is being or has been committed g.) Any transaction similar or analogous to any of the above Unlawful Activities Under RA 9160 1.) Kidnapping for ransom 2.) Drug trafficking 3.) Violations of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act 4.) Plunder 5.) Robbery and extortion 6.) Jueteng and masiao 7.) Piracy on the high seas 8.) Qualified theft 9.) Swindling/estafa 10.) Violations of the E-Commerce Act 11.) Hijacking and other violations of RA 6235 12.) Destructive arson and murder, including those committed by terrorists against non-combatants and similar targets 13.) Fraudulent practices and other violations under the Securities Regulations Code 14.) Acts of terrorism 15.) Felonies/offenses of a similar nature punishable under the criminal laws of other countries

Page 8