Amidst testimonies by
Benhur Luy and his fellow witnesses that they had been depositing and
withdrawing from bank accounts of their erstwhile boss, Pork Barrel queen Janet
Napoles, large sums of money to the tune of tens of millions of pesos, I wonder
why the Anti-Money Laundering Counsel (AMLC), tasked to implement the
Anti-Money Laundering Act (AMLA) of 2001 or RA 9160, as amended by RA 9194, is
not being summoned to shed light on what actions, if any, it took concerning
the supposed reports, if any, the banks involved submitted to it (AMLC)
regarding said deposits.
For sure, the deposits
constituted “covered transactionS” under its definition in the law considering
the amounts (total of over 500k deposits in a day). They could even be
classified as “suspicious transactions,” considering that it is patently
abnormal and suspicious for a legitimate business person to be withdrawing in
cold cash large sums that would necessitate inconveniently bagging and hauling
them.
Banks and other covered
institutions enumerated under the law are required to “know their customers.” I
wonder how Napoles introduced or represented herself to the banks when she
opened her account and throughout her relationship with them in order to
override the suspicion (large deposits) triggered by the law (or justify her
transactions):
· there
is no underlying legal/trade obligation, purpose or economic justification;
· the
amount involved is not commensurate with the business or financial capacity of
the client.
It should not have been
enough that she said she was a contractor dealing with the government. In fact,
that should have heightened the suspicion and set into motion a thorough
investigation, unless those whose duty it was to so do were conspirators or
accomplices to these predicate crimes of graft and corruption, and/or plunder.
Legitimate business
transactions nowadays are sealed and payments of consideration therefor made
through writing checks, wiring direct to accounts, letters of credit,
telegraphic transfers, and so forth. When you withdraw cash purportedly to
settle business transactions, it’s not only red flag or alarm going off, it is
on its face screaming and stinking anomaly that should have triggered covert
and extensive investigation.
If banks did not make a
report for covered and suspicious transaction to BSP and AMLC, then banks must
made to explain why no such actions were taken, and if found remiss, must be
meted punishment as provided for under the law.
If banks did what it was
incumbent upon them, but AMLC failed to conduct the necessary investigation,
then it must be similarly subjected to the process and accountability as the
banks, and more, for this time it involves government officials, and if proven
that they purposely turned a blind eye, or colluded with the perpetrators.
It is strange that the
Inter-Agency Anti-Graft Coordinating Council (IAAGCC) -quite a mouthful for an ad hoc committee- has been eerily silent
on AMLC’s role in their investigation. But I hope that in the coming days it
will start to break down its role in detecting these anomalies if only it acted
by its mandate.
