[av_one_full first min_height=” vertical_alignment=” space=” custom_margin=” margin=’0px’ padding=’0px’ border=” border_color=” radius=’0px’ background_color=” src=” background_position=’top left’ background_repeat=’no-repeat’ animation=”]
[av_heading heading=’AN INDEPENDENT VIEW ‘ tag=’h3′ style=’blockquote modern-quote’ size=” subheading_active=’subheading_below’ subheading_size=’15’ padding=’10’ color=” custom_font=”]
BY NEIL HONEYMAN
[/av_heading]
[av_textblock size=’18’ font_color=” color=”]
ON THE evening of Feb. 4, 2016, US $81 million was transferred from the Bangladesh Bank account at the New York Federal Reserve Bank to the Rizal Commercial Banking Corporation (RCBC). The transfer was effected electronically via SWIFT (Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunications).
It later turned out that the transfer was not authorized by Bangladesh Bank. Its account had been hacked and the transfer order was fake.
At a subsequent Senate hearing, RCBCâs legal advisor mentioned that the transfer from the Federal Reserve Bank was âstraight throughâ to RCBCâs Jupiter Street Branch where the account to which the funds were sent were held.
I believe this is incorrect.
RCBC has a single SWIFT code, its head office, to which the transfer was made. The funds were then sent from its head office to its Jupiter Street branch.
From the outset, RCBC sought to scapegoat its Jupiter Street branch manager, Maia Deguito. This is regrettable and, I believe, disadvantageous to RCBC. Surely, a good faith defense would have been appropriate.
After all, the funds were sent from Bangladesh Bank via SWIFT to RCBC. There was no initial evidence that anything was amiss.
RCBC has been fined a record P1 billion by the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP) for its failure to prevent the movement of stolen money. Again, a good faith defense is strong because RCBC can claim that the funds had been disbursed before there was any evidence that the money was stolen.
Bangladesh is in dire straits at the moment. Approximately 30 percent of its land area has been flooded. It has also received many refugees, Rohingyas, from neighboring Myanmar. The refugees claim that they have suffered hugely from the Myanmar army.
Since US $81 million was stolen from Bangladeshâs Central Bank, and since it has only received $15 million from casino junket operator Kim Wong via BSP, it would be not inappropriate for BSP to donate the RCBC fine, almost US $20 million, to the Bangladesh government. It would be wrong of the Philippines to benefit from the Bangladesh cyberheist.
Bangladesh officials are currently making representations to the department of Justice (DOJ), and the Anti-Money Laundering Council (AMLC).
Coincidentally, or not, the DOJ has, last week, produced a resolution which charges Deguito with eight counts of money laundering. Did she gain financially from her involvement in the faulty transaction?
One of the less endearing features of life in the Philippines is that it tends to be the lowly ones who are blamed whereas others are exonerated, or at least not charged.
Did Deguito commit unilateral acts of misconduct or are there others who should be charged?
Her attorney, Felipe Topacio, has together with his client, a steep mountain to climb.
There are those who say that the truth will emerge sooner or later. I hope they are right. But I have my doubts./PN
[/av_textblock]
[/av_one_full]
