The Supreme Court ruling in EastWest Rural Bank vs. PNP-ACG clarifying the interaction between bank secrecy and cybercrime laws.
Why banks are considered “service providers” under the Cybercrime Prevention Act and can be compelled to comply with disclosure warrants.
The legal distinction between protected deposit information and disclosable subscriber information under cybercrime investigations.
How the ruling aligns with the Anti-Financial Account Scamming Act (AFASA) and expands investigatory powers against online fraud.
Understand When Bank Secrecy Can Be Lifted
Learn how Supreme Court rulings, cybercrime warrants, and recent legislation allow banks to disclose account-holder information during fraud investigations.
This section addresses common concerns raised by businesses, legal teams, and finance professionals looking for clarity on complex issues and get a better understanding of key concepts.
Do cybercrime warrants violate the Bank Secrecy Law?
No. The Supreme Court ruled that cybercrime warrants allowing disclosure of subscriber information do not violate bank secrecy, which protects deposit balances and transactions—not basic identifying data.
What information can banks disclose under a cybercrime warrant?
Banks may disclose subscriber information such as the account holder’s name, address, contact details, and verification data, but not confidential deposit balances or transaction histories.
How quickly must banks comply with disclosure orders?
Banks are required to comply with Warrants to Disclose Computer Data and related disclosure orders within 72 hours of receipt.
.webp)
