Philippines Suspends 25 Crypto Wallets Linked to Flood Scandal

The Philippine Court of Appeals has placed a freeze on 116 accounts and assets, including 25 cryptocurrency wallets, following a Sept. 21 mandate linked to an unnamed lawmaker amid a probe into flood-control fraud.

The Anti-Money Laundering Council has stated that the freeze order impacts assets tied to a “prominent lawmaker,” a corporation, and several associated individuals. The Court of Appeals issued the order after establishing probable cause that the assets may be linked to alleged plunder under Republic Act No. 7080.

The AMLC’s announcement did not disclose the identity of the lawmaker, corporation, or associated individuals. Confidentiality regulations prevent the council from revealing information that could disclose identities in freeze-order proceedings.

AMLC freeze includes 25 cryptocurrency wallets and 91 additional assets

The order from Sept. 21 encompasses 86 bank accounts, four investment accounts, one insurance policy, and 25 crypto wallets. Collectively, these comprise 116 financial accounts and assets under restraint while investigations are ongoing.

By imposing a freeze order, the court blocks access to the included properties, prohibiting their withdrawal, transfer, or disposal during the legally sanctioned timeframe. The Philippine Supreme Court has indicated that this measure serves as interim relief meant to safeguard properties suspected of being involved in illegal activity while investigators build their case. A freeze order does not, in itself, determine criminal culpability.

The current announcement lacks specific values for the 25 cryptocurrency wallets and does not name the cryptocurrencies held, provide blockchain addresses, or identify the virtual asset service provider involved. The AMLC also did not clarify how much of the suspected funds were transmitted through cryptocurrencies compared to banks, investment accounts, or other financial services mentioned in the investigation.

Investigators observed that the individuals involved demonstrated “no apparent operating revenues” sufficient to sustain the scale of their investments. The announcement did not disclose the value of these investments or identify the businesses reviewed for operating income.

AMLC reports funds flowed through cryptocurrency and banking networks

The council explained that funds related to the investments traversed through individual intermediaries, corporations, bank accounts, a money service business, and a virtual asset platform. Multiple recipients and financial avenues “complicated the tracing of the funds,” according to the AMLC.

The agency traced the funds to alleged corruption and plunder cases associated with the lawmaker. Although the statement referenced virtual asset service providers and multiple wallets in the transaction pathway, it did not name any exchanges or implicate a specific crypto company in wrongdoing.

Virtual asset firms in the Philippines are subject to different regulatory mandates from the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas and the Securities and Exchange Commission. Crypto.news reported in June that the BSP had implemented more stringent screening and ongoing monitoring protocols for virtual asset service offerings.

A separate report by crypto.news noted that Binance and BlockShoals were lacking the necessary BSP licenses for virtual asset services as of that time, despite BlockShoals engaging in testing through the SEC’s regulatory sandbox. Neither company was mentioned by the AMLC in the freeze order issued on Sept. 21, and the council’s public statement did not specify the platform linked to the transactions being scrutinized.

Previous flood-control investigations had tracked cryptocurrency transactions

Cryptocurrency had emerged in the government’s asset-recovery efforts related to flood-control activities prior to the most recent order. In December 2025, Renato Paraiso, an official from the Cybercrime Investigation and Coordination Center, indicated that investigators were probing reports of funds associated with flood-control corruption being converted into USDT and funneled through intermediaries.

Paraiso remarked that investigators had observed significant requests for USDT and were investigating potential cryptocurrency movements ranging from $50 million to $100 million. One-time transactions exceeding ₱50 million were noted during the laundering patterns being monitored. These figures were estimates from the previous inquiry and were not presented by the AMLC as the valuation of the 25 wallets subject to the September 2026 order.

At that time, Paraiso stated that the AMLC had successfully recovered some USDT after an exchange voluntarily froze a suspicious transaction and cooperated with authorities. He mentioned that offshore exchanges presented jurisdictional challenges for Philippine agencies, often requiring cooperation from platforms located outside the country.

The latest order from the Court of Appeals provides domestic legal grounds for restraining the specific accounts and wallets implicated in this case. The AMLC reiterated its commitment to collaborating with partner agencies and financial service providers to identify, trace, restrain, and recover suspected illicit assets.

Court has the authority to prolong the freeze during ongoing proceedings

According to Philippine anti-money laundering regulations, courts have an initial 20-day window for freeze orders from the Court of Appeals. The Supreme Court has mandated that a summary hearing must be convened within that timeframe, providing notice to the involved parties, to determine if the order should be altered, lifted, or extended.

If the court opts to extend a freeze order, the total duration cannot surpass six months under Section 10 of the Anti-Money Laundering Act. An individual whose account has been frozen may seek to lift the order, while only the Supreme Court possesses the authority to issue an injunction against a freeze order.

The Supreme Court has further clarified that a freeze order must be restricted to the amount or value that the court deems likely connected to an underlying offense. Funds within the same account exceeding the suspected proceeds’ value are not automatically subject to the freeze solely on the basis of their placement in the same account.

Authorities can initiate a separate asset preservation order through the Regional Trial Court upon filing an anti-money laundering or civil forfeiture case. The Court of Appeals can subsequently transfer the records to the trial court, allowing an asset preservation order to continue restraining assets involved in the case.