REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

Regional Trial Court

National Capital Judicial Region
Branch 37, Manila

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES,

represented by the ANTI-MONEY
LAUNDERING COUNCIL
(AMLC),
Petitioner, AMLC Case No. 19-002-37
-versus- For: Civil Forfeiture
WU TZU CHUAN, et al.,
Respondents.
x-----------------------------------------x

MOTION TO DISCHARGE
PROVISIONAL ASSET PRESERVATION ORDER

RESPONDENT YANQIU LI (“respondent Yanqiu Li”) through the

undersigned counsel and unto this Honorable Court, respectfully avers
that:

To date, notice or hearing whatsoever has been conducted relative to

the above entitled case;

Respondent YANQIU LI continues to suffer losses due to the failure

to infuse new capital in her business brought about by the FREEZE ORDER
of the Court of Appeals in 2018 which was already IPSO FACTO lifted as
of 22 January 2019;

Herein respondent received payment of a

lawful debt incurred way back in 2016

It bears stressing that the respondent already manifested early on

before the Court of Appeals that the amount deposited from MWSY
Enterprises thru Lina Tan was in payment of a lawful debt 1 incurred way
back in 2016 and is thus not part of any illegal activity;
Respondent Yanqiu Li is engaged in lawful business in Binondo and
is not involved in any drug related case.

1
Copy of Motion to Lift Freeze Order hereto attached as Annex “A”;
1
 It should be noted that the FREEZE ORDER in CA-GR AMLA Case
no. 00207 of the Court of Appeals was ipso facto lifted as of 3 January 2019.
As early as 22 January 2019, respondent/intervenor, demanded that the
involved account be withdrawn and closed which demand was
denied/rejected by BDO Sta. Elena, Divisoria Branch.

The factual events that took place prior to the filing of the present
CIVIL FORFEITURE case was clearly elaborated upon in respondent’s
Compliance with Manifestation dated 12 February 20192

It is thus unfair, to say the least, that the law has now presumed that
respondent Yanqiu Li is engaged in illegal drug activity and/or money
laundering simply because his bank account had a single check deposit
transaction with an individual who was tagged in these activities. She has
not been involved in any illicit transaction much less one which involves
the sale of prohibited drugs. On the contrary, she is involved in activities
related to general trading in Binondo.

The conclusions/presumptions involving the account of respondent

Yanqiu Li are thus unclear and speculative. The petitioner did not even
attach any document that would support its claim against her, not even the
copies of the checks in question or the “financial documents” purportedly
recovered. Consequently, respondent Yanqiu Li most humbly implores this
Honorable Court to re-examine the documents and assertions of the
petitioner inasmuch as there was no factual and legal basis to support this
action and to further justify the issuance of the asset preservation order.

On this score, the term “related accounts” is defined in Republic Act

No. 10167, which amended Sections 10 and 11 of Republic Act No. 9160, to
wit:

“For purposes of this section, ‘related accounts’ shall refer to

accounts, the funds and sources of which originated from and/or
are materially linked to the monetary instrument(s) or
property(ies) subject of the freeze order(s).”

Petitioner has not categorically shown that the deposits to the subject
bank accounts of respondent Yanqiu Li are directly related to an illegal
activity such as sale of prohibited drugs. For the petitioner to assert that the
funds in the bank accounts of the herein respondent are directly related to
an illegal activity and, thus, must be forfeited in favor of the government is
tantamount to depriving one’s life and property on mere conjectures and
wild suppositions. They are utterly unjust and unfair not only to herein

2
Copy of the Compliance and Manifestation hereto attached as Annex “B”;
2
respondent Yanqiu Li but to the other respondents in the instant case as
well.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, it is most respectfully prayed of this Honorable Court

that the PROVISIONAL ASSET PRESERVATION ORDER involving Sta.
Elena, Divisoria BDO account no. 008930002337 DISCHARGED or in the
alternative release only the amount of Php 5, 809,493.95 in favor of
respondent.

Other reliefs just and equitable under the premises are likewise
prayed for.

City of Manila for Pasay City. 20 June 2019.

ARELLANO& ASSOCIATES
Counsel for Respondent
8/F iMet BPO Building
Metropolitan Park, Roxas Blvd.
Pasay City, Philippines
Telephone Number:

By:
RAYSUN ARELLANO
Roll of Attorney # 66646
PTR No. 8021662, 1/3/19 -Manila
IBP Member OR. no. 066224 - Manila Chapter
MCLE Compliance VI- 000577
Issued on 29 September 2016 – Pasig City

JOEFFREY G. PAGDANGANAN
Roll of Attorney # 59542
PTR No. MKT 7333412, 1/3/19 -Makati City
IBP LIFETIME Member no. 013556 - Makati Chapter
MCLE Compliance VI- 3096
Issued on 7 August 2017 – Pasig City

3
Copy Furnished:

OFFICE OF THE SOLICITOR GENERAL

For Petitioner AMLC
134 Amorsolo Street, Legaspi Village
1229 Makati City

EXPLANATION ON MODE OF SERVICE

The service of the foregoing Verified Comment upon the parties herein
were made by registered mail due to distance, time constraints and lack of
manpower.

JOEFFREY G. PAGDANGANAN