MANILA – The Anti-Money Laundering Council (AMLC) denied on Tuesday that its investigation into what is described as the biggest money laundering scam in Asia’s banking history was slow.
WATCH: $81-M bank heist may be biggest in Asia: Int’l consultant
In a press conference held on Tuesday, AMLC Secretariat executive director Julia Bacay-Abad said AMLC acted swiftly when it got wind of the missing $81 million from the central bank of Bangladesh through a phone call from the governor of the central bank of Bangladesh himself.
Abad noted that the bank that received the alleged stolen funds, the RCBC Jupiter branch, could have acted on its own when it noticed suspicious activity in several accounts.
“There’s no way for us to know because in the first place, the bank on its own could have determined that something was wrong with the transactions and they could have submitted [a report] on their own,” Abad said.
“It probably so happened that their submission was preceded by my call, but probably it’s possible that even without my call, they could have also submitted reports because I understand that there was already an investigation being conducted by the bank when all these things happened,” she added.
Abad said RCBC filed a suspicious transaction report on February 12, one day after Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP) governor Amando Tetangco Jr., who is also AMLC chairman, received a call from the Bangladesh central bank governor.
She said RCBC’s submission was still within the prescribed 10-day requirement, as the funds were deposited to the RCBC accounts on February 5.
After receiving the alert from Bangladesh, Abad said AMLC immediately launched an investigation on February 12.
“We determined whether these transactions actually occurred based on our database, and indeed we are able to confirm from the database that these remittances happened. From there, we required the concerned bank to submit account opening forms pertaining to the account the day after we discovered. So between February 12 and 13, we gathered all pertinent documents pertaining to the accounts,” she said.
Abad said that by February 15, AMLC was able to determine that the identification cards submitted by the RCBC account holders were fake.
“Don’t tell us na mabagal ‘yung ginawa naming investigation. By February 16, we already had all these authenticated documents [for a freeze order] from the Bangladesh Bank,” she said.
Abad explained that the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) signed the petition for the freeze order on February 26, but it was filed before the Court of Appeals on Monday, February 29.
The freeze order on the bank accounts linked to the scam was issued on March 1. By then, the funds had already been withdrawn and remitted to casino operators.
WATCH: Casino junket operator got $30-M in cash
On March 14, AMLC filed charges against RCBC Jupiter branch bank manager Maia Santos-Deguito and others involved in the scheme.
‘EXPEDITE PROCESS’
Abad believes that giving AMLC the power to issue a cease and desist order on its covered institutions will prevent this from happening again, but she is leaving it up to the lawmakers to decide.
“That will expedite process, of course, but as to the propriety of giving the AMLC the power to freeze or to issue cease and desist, we’ll leave it to the discretion of the lawmakers,” she said.
Senator TG Guingona, the chair of the Senate Blue Ribbon Committee investigating the scam, also wants to give AMLC the power to immediately freeze an account, even without an order from the courts.
Abad explained that under the functions of AMLC, it can only secure a freeze order from the court.
Also among its functions are:
– the filing of a criminal complaint for the prosecution of money launderers;
– imposing administrative sanctions on those who violate the law; – require and receive covered and suspicious transaction reports from covered institutions;
– investigate suspicious transactions; and,
– institute civil forfeiture and all other remedial proceedings through the OSG.
Abad said that in 2015, AMLC received over 36 million covered transaction reports as well as 146,308 suspicious transaction reports.
“We are receiving millions of transaction reports and the AMLC cannot look into all those transactions,” she said.
WHAT IS COVERED BY AMLC?
Abad explained that there are two types of transactions that should be reported to the AMLC–covered transactions and suspicious transactions.
A covered transaction is any transaction in cash or other equivalent monetary instrument involving a total amount in excess of P500,000 within one banking day.
“For example, I obtained a loan from the GSIS, if the proceeds of the loan are deposited to my bank account, let’s say in the amount of P650,000, definitely that loan proceeds will be reported to the AMLC as a covered transaction,” said Abad.
Suspicious transactions, on the other hand, are those that have no underlying legal, trade obligation, purpose or economic justification.
These transactions also include instances wherein the client is not properly identified; amount involved is not commensurate to the business or financial capacity of client; and, the transaction is in any way related to an unlawful activity or any money laundering offense that is about to be, is being or has been committed.
Among the institutions covered by the AMLC are banks, quasi-banks, money changers, remittance companies, insurance companies, company service providers, lawyers, accountants, and dealers of precious stones and metals.
Abad said AMLC will propose to add casinos in the coverage of money laundering laws.
“What we will propose to Congress is to amend the law, primarily to include the casino sector in the coverage of the law. Second, strengthen the supervisory authority of the BSP over the remittance companies. Also, include the real estate brokers and agents in the coverage of the law, kasi ito ‘yung mga sector that is also vulnerable to money laundering,” she said.
Abad: AMLC probe into 81-M dollar heist not slow – #JHedzWorlD
