Ombudsman OKs filing of forfeiture case vs Nani Perez | Inquirer News

Ombudsman OKs filing of forfeiture case vs Nani Perez

/ 07:30 PM November 25, 2014

MANILA, Philippines—Ombudsman Conchita Carpio Morales approved the filing with the Sandiganbayan of a petition for forfeiture of the alleged ill-gotten wealth of former Justice Secretary Hernando “Nani” Perez who served from 2001 to 2003.

Morales approved the filing of the petition after investigation showed that Perez, his wife Rosario Perez, his brother-in-law Ramon Antonio Arceo, Jr., and Ernest DL Escaler acquired ill-gotten wealth worth US$2 million.

Former Justice Secretary Hernando “Nani” Perez. INQUIRER FILE PHOTO

Former Justice Secretary Hernando “Nani” Perez. INQUIRER FILE PHOTO

Records showed that sometime in February 2001, Mario B. Crespo, also known as Mark Jimenez, gave US$2 million so that he will not be included in exchange for custody under the Witness Protection Program and testifying against former President, now Manila Mayor Joseph Estrada.

Article continues after this advertisement

In compliance with the demand, fund transactions and transfers from Jimenez’ bank accounts to the bank accounts of Perez, Escaler and Arceo were facilitated.   Investigation further disclosed that Perez, his wife Rosario, and Escaler were all in Hong Kong at the crucial time when the fund transfers were made to Escaler’s bank account in Hong Kong.

FEATURED STORIES

Records revealed that Perez failed to include in his 2001 and 2002 Statement of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth (SALNs) his or his wife’s financial interest of at least US$1.7 million transferred to their accounts by Escaler.

The petition for forfeiture included the request for the ex-parte issuance of a writ of preliminary attachment/garnishment, attaching and garnishing all real and/or personal properties and assets, including funds, investments and bank accounts and other financial instruments owned by Perez, Escaler and Arceo.

Article continues after this advertisement

The issuance of the writ is necessary to secure the government’s claim so as not to leave it with the proverbial “empty bag.”

Article continues after this advertisement

RELATED STORIES

Article continues after this advertisement

Nani Perez cries double jeopardy

SC affirms dismissal of Nani Perez extortion case

Your subscription could not be saved. Please try again.
Your subscription has been successful.

Subscribe to our daily newsletter

By providing an email address. I agree to the Terms of Use and acknowledge that I have read the Privacy Policy.

TAGS: Forfeiture, Nation, News, Ombudsman

Your subscription could not be saved. Please try again.
Your subscription has been successful.

Subscribe to our newsletter!

By providing an email address. I agree to the Terms of Use and acknowledge that I have read the Privacy Policy.

© Copyright 1997-2024 INQUIRER.net | All Rights Reserved

This is an information message

We use cookies to enhance your experience. By continuing, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn more here.