The Anti-Money Laundering Council yesterday appealed to the Supreme Court to issue a freeze order on the 24 bank accounts of Jocelyn “Jocjoc” Bolante, who is suspected of having diverted the P728-million fertilizer fund to these accounts.

Through the Office of the Solicitor General, the council also prodded the court to issue a temporary restraining order and prevent the banks from allowing Bolante and his group to withdraw the funds.

Without an injunction, the council said that efforts to recover the fertilizer funds would become futile.

The accounts in at least 10 banks are under the name of Bolante, his wife Ma. Carol and sons Owen Vincent, Alejo Lamera, Carmen Lamera, Edna Constantino, Ariel Panganiban, Katherine Bombeo, Samuel S. Bombeo, Molugan Foundation, Samuel G. Bombeo Jr., and National Livelihood Development Corp.

The council sought the reversal of the Court of Appeals’ ruling last month denying its urgent motion to extend its Feb. 4, 2009 freeze order on Bolante’s bank deposits and related web accounts.

The appellate court ruled that the council resorted to forum shopping in seeking to extend the freeze order on the subject accounts beyond the allowable period of six months.

It also did not give credence to the argument that the council’s failure to complete its probe into Bolante’s bank account was due to the SC’s decision in the Eugenio case, which declared that an application for bank inquiry cannot be obtained ex parte.

The AMLC considered the Eugenio decision as a legal setback as it renders all the documents they obtained ex-parte inadmissible as evidence.

But CA held that the SC ruling in the “Eugenio case” was promulgated on Feb. 14, 2008 or almost five months prior to the filing of AMLC’s ex-parte motion for the issuance of freeze order thus, it cannot be raised as a supervening event that warrants an extension of the freeze order.

In its petition, the council stressed that the Eugenio ruling justifies the filing of the second petition for a freeze order and should not be considered as forum-shopping.

According to the council, there is an urgent necessity for the extension of the freeze order to prevent the withdrawal and dissipation of the funds deposited in the subject bank accounts.

Republic Act 9160 or the Anti-Money Laundering Act do not expressly prohibit the filing of a second petition for freeze order covering accounts and monetary instruments covered by a previous freeze order, especially where compelling reasons exist.