Rizal Commercial Banking Corporation (RCBC) at Jupiter Street, Makati. INQUIRER FILE PHOTO/RAFFY LERMA
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 (RCBC) allowed several transactions involving the $81 million in stolen Bangladeshi funds to be credited and withdrawn despite queries from its controversial former bank manager for clarification and guidance from her superiors.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.”
READ: Ex-RCBC branch head: ‘I am but a pawn…’
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.
“If they need to delay crediting [the funds into the bank accounts] by one day, it can be done. That’s all at their discretion,” said Deguito, who in her 16-year banking career has risen from teller in another bank to the head of one of RCBC’s most profitable branches. “But for these specific transactions, I don’t know and I can’t explain how it happened that they credited the account without anything [being asked]. I was assuming that everything was in place because the accounts were credited without asking for any confirmation from us or without requiring any documents. They could have called me to ask for supporting documents from clients. That was the ideal procedure.”
RCBC’s legal chief, meanwhile, assailed Deguito’s credibility, pointing to her admission during the last Senate hearing that she lied in her reply to the bank’s letter asking for her explanation on the transactions.
READ: Deguito admits lying in money laundering probe
“In that letter, Deguito claimed to have met the account holders and spoken repeatedly with Mr. [Jessie Christopher] Lagrosas and received his instructions. Deguito later admitted that she lied as she was only getting instructions from Kim Wong. In fact, the SSS ID of Lagrosas shows the face of Adrian Yujuico,” Estavillo said.
She added that Deguito “loaded P20 million cash in her white [Honda] Jazz car, as stated in affidavits of two security guards and two branch officers, and not in the gray Lexus SUV of William Go as Deguito and Angela Torres claim. Deguito has stated in the Senate that she did not turn over any money to Kim Wong.”
“RCBC intends to sue both Deguito and Torres for perjury relating to statements made in the Senate hearings and in the affidavit of Torres relating to this,” Estavillo said.
For his part, Topacio pointed to the central role of RCBC’s Tan in the entire transaction, saying that the bank’s CEO knew all the parties involved, including casino junket operator Wong, businessman Willam Go (who claims that his signature was forged to open bank accounts under his name), as well as car dealer Jason Go at whose establishment Deguito was said to have met the parties involved.
“Lorenzo Tan said during the hearing that, when funds are already credited to the account, the withdrawal cannot be stopped,” Topacio said. “So why did he lay the blame on us when we allowed the funds to be withdrawn?”
“They said Maia facilitated everything, and that she fast-tracked everything so that the funds would be withdrawn by the beneficiaries. That’s not true,” the lawyer said. “When the money arrived, Ms. Deguito exercised due diligence by inquiring from head office what it was about.”
Topacio proceeded to show documents from the head office clearing the transaction, including an e-mail sent at 6:22 p.m. of Feb. 5 that read: “This is a valid remittance.”
“So it’s not true that they say the branch manager was negligent or complicit. Because, if so, why did she ask? If they head office told her to stop, then it would have ended and the conspiracy would not have been accomplished,” he said. RAM
RELATED VIDEO
