‘Why only Wong and Xu?’

The Anti-Money Laundering Council (AMLC) should also bring criminal complaints against officials of companies to which mysterious computer hackers wired $81 million they stole from the Bangladesh central bank last month, and not just against two Chinese businessmen in whose accounts the money had been traced, Sen. Aquilino “Koko” Pimentel III said Wednesday.

Pimentel was not satisfied with the AMLC’s criminal complaint against Chinese casino junket operator Xu Weikang and Cagayan-based restaurateur Kam Sin Wong, also known as Kim Wong, over the laundering of the stolen money through the Philippines.

He said the money passed through other parties before reaching the accounts of Xu and Wong, but the AMLC asked the Department of Justice (DOJ) to file charges only against Xu and Wong on Tuesday.

Unless other people are also charged, Pimentel said he would ask the AMLC why only Xu and Wong were sued when the Senate blue ribbon committee resumes its inquiry into the scandal next Tuesday.

‘Cover-up’

Earlier, the AMLC filed a criminal complaint against Maia Santos-Deguito, manager of the Rizal Commercial Banking Corp. (RCBC) branch on Jupiter Street, Makati City, where the hackers wired the $81 million.

Deguito’s lawyer accused the AMLC of a cover-up, saying his client was singled out for prosecution.

The $81 million was wired to four accounts in Deguito’s bank branch under fictitious names, which were consolidated into an account in the name of Chinese-Filipino businessman William So Go, then converted into pesos through the remittance company Philrem, which transferred the funds to Xu and casino operators Hawaii Leisure Co. and Bloomberry Hotels Inc.

Pimentel noted that when he asked the AMLC what it had against Wong, the council cited its discovery of his Philippine National Bank account after part of the $81 million was remitted to Eastern Hawaii Leisure Co. Ltd., of which he is president.

“So what happens now to the actors before the money reached Eastern Hawaii? Who are these actors? Philrem and RCBC, the bank itself, and Mr. William So Go,” he told reporters at the Senate.

“How come they have not been included [in the suit]? There must be a reason,” he added.

Pimentel said he was not insisting that Philrem, RCBC, or Go be charged by the AMLC as well. He said he just wanted an  explanation for their exclusion from the lawsuit.

RCBC apologizes

RCBC apologized to the public Wednesday for the involvement of its employees in the scandal.

“RCBC offers its sincerest apologies for the involvement of its personnel in the money-laundering scheme now subject of Senate blue ribbon committee and AMLC investigations,” the bank said in a statement.

The bank said it “recognizes the evils wrought by money laundering and will do its utmost in the fight against it.”

The RCBC board also accepted a second offer of the bank’s president, Lorenzo Tan, to go on leave.

“Tan insisted on taking a leave to allow him to focus on clearing his name in the money-laundering issue a board committee is investigating,” RCBC said.

“So far, no evidence has been presented against Tan linking him to the issue and the board has taken cognizance of the statement of Deguito before the Senate that Tan had nothing to do with the opening of the accounts that received the $81-million remittance,” it said.

RCBC chair Helen Yuchengco-Dee will take over the bank’s daily operations during Tan’s absence. She will be assisted by a management committee led by vice chair Cesar Virata and Armando Medina, the bank announced Wednesday.

RCBC fired Deguito and her deputy, Angela Torres, on Tuesday.

Others to be sanctioned

Maria Cecilla Fernandez-Estavillo, RCBC head for legal and regulatory affairs, said on Tuesday that other branch and bank officials were expected to be meted out sanctions in the coming days.

The bank would also bring charges against Deguito and Torres next week, she said.

“The (internal) process is going to end by next week. The investigation has ended. Sanctions are expected to be out by next week. There are different degrees of culpability and participation (among employees),” Estavillo said Wednesday.

Asked how high up the responsibility went, Estavillo said: “From our investigation, it’s very clear there’s no criminal collusion at the head office level. There were lapses by some personnel but no criminal collusion. Definitely, had there been criminal collusion, the immediate action would be to remove these people. But we don’t see that [happening] and with a very high level of confidence, we can say there’s no criminal collusion.”

Liabilities

Asked whether RCBC was bracing for liabilities arising from the heist, Estavillo said: “We don’t see that they can go after us because to begin with—we don’t know the full story (in Bangladesh), but it looks like there were also problems from their end.  In cases where there’s a theft, they have a cause for action against the thief but not against the bank.”

But if the case is brought to court, Estavillo said, “that’s the proper venue to give our defense.”

Asked whether RCBC was preparing for potential fines from the regulators, she said: “We’ll just defend ourselves. We will explain ourselves to the regulator. We will cooperate with them.”

Internal controls

In its letter of apology, RCBC  vowed to identify weaknesses in internal controls and operations that may have facilitated the entry of the $81 million stolen from Bangladesh.

“We’re engaging third-party foreign consultants to just review the processes so we can  strengthen them further,” Estavillo said.

“The changes that we will make are in response to the changing face of crime, the more sophisticated changing face of crime,” she said.

RELATED VIDEOS