AMLC is accountable only to Filipino people

This refers to the news items which appeared under the byline of Norman Bordadora in the Dec. 26 and 27 issues of the Inquirer (“Joker stalls ‘dirty money’ law changes” and “Amla faces rough sailing,” respectively).

The need to further amend the Anti-Money Laundering Act (Amla) was not raised by the Financial Action Task Force, contrary to the perception of a few. The Philippines, being a party-signatory, is duty-bound to comply with its obligations under the United Nations Convention Against Corruption, as well as under the Vienna and Palermo Conventions which require the adequate criminalization of money laundering; and to provide the widest possible range of predicate offenses to money laundering. Hence, the filing and pendency of Senate Bill No. (SB) 3123.

In opposing the proposed additional amendments to the Amla, as amended, Sen. Joker Arroyo was quoted as saying that “Philippine banks—unlike everybody else involved in the laundering transactions—are not penalized for accepting funds from dubious sources.”

With due respect to Senator Arroyo, his statement is not accurate. The first money laundering conviction in the Philippines involved a branch manager of a major bank. Money laundering cases were filed against bank officers and are pending before the regional trial courts of Pasig City, Binangonan in Rizal, and Olongapo City.

To date, the Anti-Money Laundering Council (AMLC) has imposed a total amount of P3.1 million in fines and other penalties on banks and other financial institutions found to have violated the Amla and its implementing rules and regulations.

Likewise, it is not true that, “those who don’t toe the administration line could be threatened with freeze orders on their bank accounts on suspicion of any of the predicate crimes that would be increased if SB 3123 is passed.”

As mandated by Congress, the purpose of a Court of Appeals-issued freeze order is to preserve any monetary instrument or property strictly based on the existence of probable cause—not just suspicion—that the monetary instrument or property are in any way related to an unlawful activity. This is an adequate legal safeguard against any abuse or misuse of the Amla.

Lastly, we firmly assure everyone that in the discharge of its mandate, the AMLC does not take orders from anyone. It is only accountable to the real “Boss”—the sovereign Filipino people.

We hope the foregoing comments will help clarify the issues.

—VICENTE S. AQUINO,

executive director,

Anti-Money Laundering Council