INQUIRER.net :
Officials of the Rizal Commercial Banking Corp. (RCBC) allowed several transactions involving the $81 million in stolen Bangladeshi funds to be credited and withdrawn despite queries from its controversial former bank manager for clarification and guidance from her superiors.
More importantly, the bank-through the treasury department in its head office-handled the so-called “dirty money” a second time two days after it was told by the Bangladesh Bank that the funds were of dubious provenance.
Thus said the dismissed head of RCBC’s Jupiter St., Makati City branch, Maia Santos-Deguito, and her counsel, Atty. Ferdinand Topacio, who presented documents, e-mails and text message exchanges to the media Wednesday morning to buttress the claim that the deals were cleared at the highest levels of the bank.
“The funds entered RCBC twice: From New York to RCBC’s settlements department [on Feb 5.], and again to RCBC’s treasury department from [money changer] Philrem,” the lawyer said. “As late as Feb 11-two days after they learned that there is a problem-RCBC treasury, which is under head office, traded the dollars for pesos.”
“At any time, they could have stopped the funds,” he said. “It was established during the Senate hearings that, as late as Feb. 11, the funds were still being traded by RCBC treasury. How can they say that the head office has no responsibility?”
However, the Yuchengco family-controlled financial institution immediately denied the accusation that the bank’s higher-ups had cleared the transactions.
The bank issued the press statement a few hours after Deguito and her lawyer made the allegations at the Kamuning Bakery’s “Pandesal Forum” in Quezon City Thursday morning.
“This is false,” RCBC executive vice president Macel Fernandez-Estavillo said, adding that Deguito herself admitted that the accounts were credited automatically without need of any approval.
Bank records showed that, at the end of day of February 5, a hold was initiated by the operations group, but was lifted when Deguito explained that the customers were long-standing clients of hers and that the amounts were expected, and that “know-your-client” documents were in order.
“Hence, the lift of the hold was approved based on Deguito’s representations that these were long-standing clients and that the funds were expected,” the bank said. “This showed that Deguito did not tell the truth to RCBC because she did not have head office approval, and in fact wanted to keep the head office in the dark as long as she could.”
RCBC maintained that its officers released and credited the funds into the four fictitious accounts in Deguito’s branch after the latter vouched for them, saying that the inflows were being expected.
During the forum, however, Deguito pointed out that her documented act of seeking guidance from the head office-and the latter’s subsequent approvals-as to the disposition of the funds was evidence that she was not out to fast-track their release of the $81 million.
Responding to allegations that she masterminded the entire money laundering operation, Deguito said: “I don’t have the resources and I don’t have the clout to do those things.”
The embattled ex-branch manager-who is now the subject of at least seven complaints filed in the courts by the Anti-Money Laundering Council, RCBC and RCBC President Lorenzo Tan-detailed how the funds passed muster through several layers of controls within the bank, leading her to believe that everything was aboveboard.
“As far as I know, from the correspondent bank, the money passes through the bank’s treasury department before it goes to the settlements department,” she said. “And then, the settlements department has systems. They have checkers, verifiers, and approvers before [the money] is finally credited to the branch.”
“This means that before the funds are credited to the branch, they already conducted due diligence,” Deguito explained, adding that the bank’s settlements department has ways to confirm with correspondent banks the validity of the transactions by requesting for additional documents-none of which was done.
Officials of the Rizal Commercial Banking Corp. (RCBC) allowed several transactions involving the $81 million in stolen Bangladeshi funds to be credited and withdrawn despite queries from its controversial former bank manager for clarification and guidance from her superiors.
More importantly, the bank-through the treasury department in its head office-handled the so-called “dirty money” a second time two days after it was told by the Bangladesh Bank that the funds were of dubious provenance.
Thus said the dismissed head of RCBC’s Jupiter St., Makati City branch, Maia Santos-Deguito, and her counsel, Atty. Ferdinand Topacio, who presented documents, e-mails and text message exchanges to the media Wednesday morning to buttress the claim that the deals were cleared at the highest levels of the bank.
“The funds entered RCBC twice: From New York to RCBC’s settlements department [on Feb 5.], and again to RCBC’s treasury department from [money changer] Philrem,” the lawyer said. “As late as Feb 11-two days after they learned that there is a problem-RCBC treasury, which is under head office, traded the dollars for pesos.”
“At any time, they could have stopped the funds,” he said. “It was established during the Senate hearings that, as late as Feb. 11, the funds were still being traded by RCBC treasury. How can they say that the head office has no responsibility?”
However, the Yuchengco family-controlled financial institution immediately denied the accusation that the bank’s higher-ups had cleared the transactions.
The bank issued the press statement a few hours after Deguito and her lawyer made the allegations at the Kamuning Bakery’s “Pandesal Forum” in Quezon City Thursday morning.
“This is false,” RCBC executive vice president Macel Fernandez-Estavillo said, adding that Deguito herself admitted that the accounts were credited automatically without need of any approval.
Bank records showed that, at the end of day of February 5, a hold was initiated by the operations group, but was lifted when Deguito explained that the customers were long-standing clients of hers and that the amounts were expected, and that “know-your-client” documents were in order.
“Hence, the lift of the hold was approved based on Deguito’s representations that these were long-standing clients and that the funds were expected,” the bank said. “This showed that Deguito did not tell the truth to RCBC because she did not have head office approval, and in fact wanted to keep the head office in the dark as long as she could.”
RCBC maintained that its officers released and credited the funds into the four fictitious accounts in Deguito’s branch after the latter vouched for them, saying that the inflows were being expected.
During the forum, however, Deguito pointed out that her documented act of seeking guidance from the head office-and the latter’s subsequent approvals-as to the disposition of the funds was evidence that she was not out to fast-track their release of the $81 million.
Responding to allegations that she masterminded the entire money laundering operation, Deguito said: “I don’t have the resources and I don’t have the clout to do those things.”
The embattled ex-branch manager-who is now the subject of at least seven complaints filed in the courts by the Anti-Money Laundering Council, RCBC and RCBC President Lorenzo Tan-detailed how the funds passed muster through several layers of controls within the bank, leading her to believe that everything was aboveboard.
“As far as I know, from the correspondent bank, the money passes through the bank’s treasury department before it goes to the settlements department,” she said. “And then, the settlements department has systems. They have checkers, verifiers, and approvers before [the money] is finally credited to the branch.”
“This means that before the funds are credited to the branch, they already conducted due diligence,” Deguito explained, adding that the bank’s settlements department has ways to confirm with correspondent banks the validity of the transactions by requesting for additional documents-none of which was done.
