Philippine Court Freezes 25 Crypto Wallets in Flood-Control Probe

All news is rigorously fact-checked and reviewed by leading blockchain experts and seasoned industry insiders.

• A Philippine court froze 116 assets linked to an unnamed “prominent lawmaker” and associated parties.
• Investigators traced suspected funds through companies, banks, a money service business and a virtual-asset platform.
• The AMLC has not disclosed the wallet addresses, crypto holdings or identity of the lawmaker.

A Philippine court has frozen 25 crypto wallets linked to an unnamed “prominent lawmaker” as investigators trace money allegedly connected to corruption in government flood-control projects, according to Philstar.

The Court of Appeals issued the freeze order on Sept. 21 after finding probable cause to believe the covered assets were related to alleged plunder, according to the country’s Anti-Money Laundering Council (AMLC).

Investigators say the money did not move through a single financial channel. The trail allegedly passed through intermediaries, corporations, conventional bank accounts, a money service business and a virtual-asset platform before reaching multiple recipients.

The AMLC has not identified the lawmaker, disclosed the cryptocurrencies involved or published the wallet addresses. The freeze preserves the assets while the investigation continues and does not amount to a criminal conviction.

Investigators Trace a Layered Route Into Crypto

The AMLC’s description provides more insight than the number of wallets alone.
Investigators found no apparent operating revenue sufficient to explain the scale of investments associated with the parties under investigation. The suspected funds were instead routed through multiple people and financial channels, increasing what the AMLC described as the “transactional distance” between the money and its alleged source.

Crypto entered that chain through virtual-asset service providers and multiple wallets.

This matters for tracing because an onchain transfer does not exist in isolation when funds enter or leave through a regulated platform. Exchange records can potentially connect blockchain addresses with account holders, while banking records can establish where fiat funds originated or where proceeds ultimately returned.

The court’s decision indicates investigators presented enough evidence connecting the financial and virtual-asset layers for the wallets to be included in the preservation order.

The unanswered questions limit how far the crypto side of the case can currently be analyzed. Without the addresses, it is impossible to independently reconstruct the transaction graph, determine which blockchains were used or establish whether the 25 wallets held substantial balances or served mainly as intermediate addresses.

The value of the frozen crypto also remains undisclosed.

Banks Still Dominate the Asset Trail

Crypto is prominent in the latest disclosure, but the composition of the order points to a broader financial investigation.

Bank accounts make up nearly three-quarters of the assets covered. The alleged movement of funds across corporations, banks, a money service business and a crypto platform is therefore more relevant than treating virtual assets as a standalone laundering channel.

The investigation also shows why moving funds into crypto does not necessarily end the paper trail.

Public blockchains preserve transaction histories, while regulated virtual-asset platforms can hold customer-identification, deposit and withdrawal records. When investigators can connect those records with banking transactions and corporate ownership, separate pieces of the financial trail can be reconstructed.

Self-custodied assets create a different enforcement problem. A court can legally freeze property, but actually preventing movement of crypto depends on who controls the private keys and whether an exchange or another intermediary has custody.

The AMLC has not disclosed how the 25 wallets in this case are controlled.

The Freeze Is Part of a Much Larger Asset Hunt

The Sept. 21 order is one piece of a far broader investigation into alleged irregularities in Philippine flood-control spending.

Earlier government disclosures showed the scale of the asset-preservation effort. By February, authorities had frozen 6,692 bank accounts and approximately PHP24.7 billion in assets connected with the wider investigation, according to figures cited by the Independent Commission for Infrastructure.

Separate Court of Appeals orders have targeted financial accounts, insurance policies, investment holdings and property associated with other individuals and companies under investigation.

That broader context makes the latest order notable for a different reason. It shows investigators following suspected proceeds across both conventional finance and digital-asset infrastructure rather than stopping once money leaves a bank.

Zaldy Co Remains a Separate Figure in the Probe

Former Ako Bicol representative Zaldy Co remains one of the most prominent figures in the broader flood-control investigation.

Philippine authorities have accused Co of playing a central role in alleged schemes involving government infrastructure spending, and he remains outside the country while authorities pursue his arrest. Officials have also renewed efforts to obtain international assistance in locating and returning him to the Philippines.

But the latest AMLC disclosure does not identify Co as the “prominent lawmaker” connected with the Sept. 21 freeze.

That separation is essential because multiple politicians, contractors and public officials have surfaced across different branches of the investigation. Connecting the anonymous freeze order to Co without confirmation would conflate separate proceedings.

The Court of Appeals order also establishes probable cause for preserving assets, not guilt. Any criminal liability must be determined through the relevant judicial proceedings.

The Missing Wallet Data Could Reveal Much More

The most useful next disclosure would be the wallet addresses themselves.

If authorities eventually make them public, blockchain records could reveal when the funds entered crypto, how many intermediary addresses were used, whether assets crossed between networks and whether they subsequently reached centralized exchanges or other identifiable services.

The monetary value matters just as much.

Twenty-five wallets can represent anything from a fragmented transaction route to substantial holdings. Without balances and token information, the wallet count alone says little about how important crypto was to the alleged scheme.

For now, the financial trail is clearer than the identities behind it: investigators say suspected proceeds moved through companies, banks, a money service business and virtual assets, and a Philippine court has authorized those assets to be preserved while the case develops.

The next disclosures to watch are the identity of the lawmaker, the value and composition of the crypto holdings, and whether prosecutors move from temporary asset preservation toward forfeiture.