What Is Criminal Liability for Assisting Corporate Fraud?
Introduction
Accountants, finance personnel, documentation staff, and administrative employees may face criminal liability when they knowingly help corporate executives carry out a financial scam. A person need not personally receive the stolen funds or occupy the highest corporate position to become legally accountable.
Philippine law distinguishes between mere corporate employment and active participation in a criminal scheme. Liability generally depends on the employee’s acts, knowledge, authority, and contribution to the fraud—not simply on the person’s job title.
When Does Assistance Become Criminal Participation?
Under Philippine criminal law, a person who knowingly aids or abets the commission of an offense may be held liable as an accomplice or, depending on the extent of participation, as a principal. The [National Internal Revenue Code of 1997](#L2.519) expressly provides that a person who willfully aids or abets a crime penalized by the Code is liable in the same manner as the principal.
In [HDMF v. Sagun, et al. (2018)](#J1.69), G.R. No. 205698, the Supreme Court explained that corporate agents may be criminally liable when they personally commit the offense or, by reason of their managerial or similar functions, possess the power to prevent its commission. The Court also stated that all persons active in promoting a crime may be principals, whether or not they personally benefited from the unlawful conduct.
Accordingly, an accountant or administrative employee may be exposed to liability where the evidence shows that the employee knowingly prepared false documents, processed fictitious transactions, issued misleading certifications, concealed irregularities, or otherwise made the fraud possible.
Applicable Corporate and Tax Laws
Revised Corporation Code
Section 163 of the [Revised Corporation Code of the Philippines](#L1.190) penalizes an independent auditor who, in collusion with corporate directors or representatives, certifies financial statements despite their incompleteness, inaccuracy, false statements, or misleading presentation of the corporation’s financial condition.
The penalty under Section 163 is a fine of ₱80,000 to ₱500,000. If the certified statement is fraudulent or injures the public, the auditor or responsible officer may be fined ₱100,000 to ₱600,000.
Section 164 of the Revised Corporation Code separately penalizes persons responsible for forming a corporation through fraud, including those who directly or indirectly assist in the fraudulent formation. The fine ranges from ₱200,000 to ₱2 million, and from ₱400,000 to ₱5 million when the violation injures or harms the public.
National Internal Revenue Code
Section 253 of the [National Internal Revenue Code of 1997](#L2.519) provides that payment of tax after apprehension does not constitute a defense to prosecution. It also imposes liability on persons who willfully aid, abet, or cause the commission of a tax crime.
For corporations and similar entities, the provision identifies responsible officers and employees who may be penalized, including the president, general manager, branch manager, treasurer, officer-in-charge, and employees responsible for the violation.
Section 257 of the National Internal Revenue Code imposes criminal liability for false entries, falsified reports, and improper certifications. It covers, among others:
- Financial officers and independent CPAs who willfully falsify audit reports or certify financial statements containing material misstatements or omissions;
- Persons who offer to certify financial statements without conducting an audit;
- Persons who knowingly make false or fictitious entries in accounting books and records;
- Persons who maintain two or more sets of accounting records; and
- Persons who commit other prohibited acts involving tax-accounting records.
These provisions are particularly relevant to accountants, bookkeepers, finance officers, and staff members who create or maintain records used to conceal unreported income, fictitious expenses, sham sales, or unauthorized disbursements.
Difference Between an Accomplice and a Principal
An accomplice knowingly assists in the execution of the offense through previous or simultaneous acts but does not perform the acts constituting the principal offense. A person who directly executes the fraudulent transaction, or whose participation is indispensable to its completion, may instead be treated as a principal.
The classification depends on the evidence. Merely performing routine work is not enough, but deliberately preparing the documents that allow a fraudulent transfer, approving fictitious entries, or coordinating the concealment of the transaction may constitute substantial participation.
The [2022 Revised Rules and Regulations Implementing Republic Act No. 9208, as amended](#I3.214) illustrates the broader statutory treatment of accomplice liability: a person who knowingly aids, abets, or cooperates in the execution of a prohibited offense through previous or simultaneous acts may be punished as an accomplice. Although that issuance concerns trafficking offenses rather than ordinary corporate fraud, it reflects the general legal distinction between knowing assistance and mere presence.
Why Job Title Alone Does Not Establish Liability
Holding the position of president, manager, accountant, or administrator does not automatically prove criminal liability. The prosecution must connect the accused to the specific unlawful act and establish the required participation beyond reasonable doubt.
In [Valenzona v. People of the Philippines (2023)](#J2.17), G.R. No. 248584, the Supreme Court held that a corporate officer’s position is insufficient by itself. What matters is the officer’s actual function in relation to the violation, including whether the officer directly and actively participated or had the power to prevent the prohibited act.
This principle protects employees who had no control over the transaction and merely performed legitimate, ministerial assignments. It does not, however, protect an employee who knowingly uses his or her position to further the fraudulent plan.
Potential Liability of Accountants
An accountant or independent auditor may incur criminal exposure when he or she:
- Certifies financial statements known to contain material falsehoods;
- Omits material transactions or taxable income with knowledge of the omission;
- Maintains duplicate or secret accounting records;
- Creates fictitious entries, invoices, receipts, or expense reports;
- Signs an audit or certification without performing the required examination; or
- Coordinates with executives to conceal the corporation’s actual financial condition.
Section 163 of the Revised Corporation Code is especially relevant when an independent auditor colludes with corporate directors or representatives. Section 257 of the National Internal Revenue Code may apply where the false records or certifications concern tax books, taxable income, deductions, exemptions, or other matters covered by the Code.
An accountant’s lack of personal financial benefit is not necessarily a defense. As recognized in HDMF v. Sagun, et al., personal benefit is not the controlling test of criminal responsibility. The central questions are whether the person knowingly participated and whether the person’s acts helped carry out the unlawful scheme.
Potential Liability of Administrative and Finance Staff
Administrative staff may be liable when their work goes beyond ordinary clerical assistance and becomes a knowing contribution to the fraud. Examples include preparing false corporate resolutions, encoding fictitious disbursements, releasing payments to nonexistent suppliers, altering supporting documents, or submitting fabricated reports to regulators, banks, investors, or government agencies.
Staff members who merely process documents in the ordinary course, without knowledge of their falsity and without authority to verify the underlying transaction, generally require a stronger evidentiary showing before criminal liability may attach.
In HDMF v. Sagun, et al., the Court considered the particular functions of employees who collated borrower documents, verified records, reviewed payment requests, prepared checks, and ensured that transactions were properly recorded. Functional responsibility, coupled with proof of knowing participation, may support criminal accountability.
Civil and Regulatory Consequences
Criminal liability may exist alongside civil and regulatory consequences. Under Section 51.5 of the [Securities Regulation Code](#L4.90), a person who substantially assists conduct for which another person is primarily liable may be jointly and severally liable for damages, if the person acted with knowledge or reckless disregard that the conduct was wrongful.
This provision is relevant to fraud involving securities transactions, false disclosures, market-related misconduct, or other violations covered by the Securities Regulation Code. Civil liability may extend to the person’s relative contribution to the damage or to the extent of unjust enrichment, whichever is greater.
Accountants may also face professional discipline, while employees may face dismissal, disqualification from corporate positions, and claims for restitution or damages. The precise consequences depend on the statute violated, the employee’s professional status, and the evidence of participation.
Typical Scenarios
| Scenario | Likely Legal Assessment |
|---|---|
| An accountant unknowingly records a transaction based on documents supplied by management. | Job performance alone does not establish criminal participation. Proof of knowledge and contribution is still required. |
| An accountant knowingly creates fictitious sales and maintains a second set of books. | Possible liability under Section 257 of the National Internal Revenue Code and other applicable offenses. |
| An auditor certifies materially false financial statements after coordinating with corporate officers. | Possible liability under Section 163 of the Revised Corporation Code, as well as other criminal and civil provisions. |
| An administrative employee prepares false payment vouchers knowing that funds will be diverted. | Possible liability as a participant in estafa, fraud, falsification, or another offense supported by the evidence. |
| A corporate officer is charged solely because of his title, although another department controlled the transaction. | Title alone is insufficient. The prosecution must prove actual responsibility, participation, or power to prevent the violation. |
What Must the Prosecution Prove?
The prosecution must establish the elements of the specific offense charged and prove the accused’s participation beyond reasonable doubt. Depending on the charge, the evidence may need to show deceit, misappropriation, falsification, a willful tax violation, knowledge of the fraudulent plan, or a legally sufficient act of assistance.
For crimes that do not require criminal intent, the prosecution may not need to prove an intent to defraud in the same manner as in ordinary crimes. Nevertheless, as explained in [Valenzona v. People of the Philippines (2023)](#J2.17), there must still be proof of volition or intent to perform the prohibited act. Mere corporate position or passive association is not enough.
Recommended Steps for Employees
An employee who encounters suspicious instructions should preserve relevant documents, maintain an accurate written record of directives, and avoid signing certifications that the employee knows to be false or incomplete.
The employee should request clarification in writing, identify the specific records or transactions that appear irregular, and consult independent Philippine legal counsel or a qualified compliance officer. Confidential information must be handled lawfully, and records should not be destroyed, altered, or removed without proper authority.
Employers should maintain segregation of duties, approval controls, audit trails, whistleblower channels, and written procedures for escalating suspected irregularities. These controls help prevent fraud and may also clarify which individuals had authority over the disputed transaction.
Conclusion
Accountants and administrative employees may be criminally liable for corporate fraud when they knowingly and voluntarily assist the fraudulent scheme. The law does not require proof that the employee occupied the highest position or personally received the proceeds.
At the same time, criminal liability cannot rest on job title alone. Courts examine the employee’s actual functions, knowledge, overt acts, authority, and contribution to the offense. The safest course is to refuse false certifications, preserve accurate records, document questionable instructions, and obtain legal advice before participating in a disputed transaction.
About Nicolas and De Vega Law Offices
Nicolas and de Vega Law Offices is a full-service law firm in the Philippines. You may visit us at the 16th Flr., Suite 1607 AIC Burgundy Empire Tower, ADB Ave., Ortigas Center, 1605 Pasig City, Metro Manila, Philippines. You may also call us at +632 84706126, +632 84706130, +632 84016392 or e-mail us at [email protected]. Visit our website https://ndvlaw.com.
