A commentary
By Raïssa Robles
Everyone assumes that all the US dollars that Chief Justice Renato Corona stashed in banks are covered by the bank secrecy law.
Let me offer the theory that they might not be ALL covered and the Senate impeachment court can legally look into them.
Yes, I know I am a mere reporter with no formal training in law. But I’ve had the experience of watching senators up close while they crafted our nation’s laws. And as a business reporter, I’ve covered retail banking. Anyway, this week I ran these ideas past two high-level bank officials. None of them wanted to be identified (I wonder why?), so let’s just call them Banker A and Banker B.
However, what they told me are all verifiable.
Now to go back to the Bank Secrecy Law
The mother law is Republic Act No. 6426 or An Act instituting a foreign currency deposit system in the Philippines, and for other purposes.
RA 6426 has no section defining what constitutes “foreign currency”.
However, it has three sections that suggest the definition by stating how banks are supposed to treat “foreign currency”.
First, Section 4 states that banks taking in such deposits “shall maintain at all times a one hundred percent foreign currency cover for their liabilities…”
Section 4 recognizes that the act of depositing by a client establishes a kind of relationship and obligation between the bank and the customer. As Banker B explained to me –
Once you give money to the bank, the bank is indebted to you as a depositor. This is the relationship – the bank is borrowing from you in the form of a deposit. For that debt they will now pay you a certain amount of interest.
The next section in RA 6426 that further suggests a definition of “foreign currency” is Section 6:
Section 6. Tax exemption. – All foreign currency deposits made under this Act, as amended by PD No. 1035, as well as foreign currency deposits authorized under PD No. 1034, including interest and all other income or earnings of such deposits, are hereby exempted from any and all taxes whatsoever irrespective of whether or not these deposits are made by residents or nonresidents so long as the deposits are eligible or allowed under aforementioned laws…
In other words, Section 6 gives all “foreign currency” deposits a 100 percent tax break.
The third section that suggests a definition of “foreign currency” is Section 9 which states:
Section 9. Deposit insurance coverage. – The deposits under this Act shall be insured under the provisions of Republic Act No. 3591, as amended (Philippine Deposit Insurance Corporation), as well as its implementing rules and regulations: Provided, That insurance payment shall be in the same currency in which the insured deposits are denominated.
In other words, foreign currency deposits are insured by PDIC.
Now let me go to my theory that not all foreign currency deposits are guaranteed confidentiality by RA 6246 or the bank secrecy law. Section 8 of this law states in particular:
Section 8. Secrecy of foreign currency deposits. – All foreign currency deposits authorized under this Act, as amended by PD No. 1035, as well as foreign currency deposits authorized under PD No. 1034, are hereby declared as and considered of an absolutely confidential nature…
Please note the phrase here – “all foreign currency deposits authorized under this Act”.
It is part of my theory that bank secrecy only covers those foreign currency deposits defined by RA 6426. In other words, only those foreign currency deposits that contain the following elements enumerated by RA 6426:
- Those for which banks have to maintain a 100% foreign currency cover
- Those with interest earnings that are not taxed by the government
- And those that are insured by PDIC.
Why do I bring up these fine distinctions?
Because since RA 6426 came into law in 1974, banks have dramatically expanded the array of foreign currency products they offer their clients.
These are aside from the traditional savings, current and time deposits that were envisioned to be covered by RA 6426.
Today, clients can park their dollars in sovereign bonds, in commercial papers, unit investment trust funds (UITFs), mutual funds – all denominated in dollars and which are not tax-free and are not insured by the PDIC.
Why would a depositor want to move away from plain vanilla dollar accounts? One reason would be: Because the interest rate on dollar savings and time deposits are terrible.
According to Banker A, a US dollar time deposit now earns 0.25% per year. A US Treasury Bond earns 2% per annum. While a US dollar-denominated ROP (Republic of the Philippines) five-year bond can earn from 2% to 2.5%. In such transactions, “we merely act as a broker,” Banker B told me.
From this, we can see that if the client wanted to put his or her dollars to work earning something more than the miserable interest on time and savings deposit accounts, then investing in these products would make sense.
In fact, as Banker B explained to me, “with a UITF or mutual fund, there is no such promise by the bank that it will pay a certain amount. It is not a bank obligation. This is a separate vehicle from the bank. In that sense, UITFs are not considered as bank deposits.”
Banker B also explained that while even mutual funds can now be bought through banks, these money market instruments are actually regulated by the Securities and Exchange Commission. In this case, the banks merely serve as “brokers” for these products.
In the case of such products, the bank has no customer liability, Banker B said. The bank doesn’t pay interest to the customer. Rather, it is the customer that pays the bank a transaction fee for arranging the buy and doing the paperwork.
In such arrangements, the bank usually asks the customer to designate a particular bank account (either savings or current) as the “settlement account”. When the customer wants to liquidate the UITF or when a commercial paper or bond reaches maturity, proceeds including the interest earned from such products are deposited in this settlement account.
In addition, Banker A also explained to me further why a dollar bond or a UITF denominated in dollars, for instance, is not considered a foreign currency deposit as defined by RA 6426:
Iba nga talaga. Kasi hindi siya deposit. Hindi siya covered ng PDIC. Pag bumili ka ng bond, wala naman sa amin ang bond. You house it at a third party. We only facilitated. We act as a broker.
Halimbawa kung ikaw kliente, magpabili ka ng stocks, I give you confirmation of sale that you bought 10,000 shares. I deliver the receipt. Babayaran mo ko. Kukunin ko commission ko. That money goes to the central depository (PCD).
Pag nagpabenta ka. Ibibigay mo ang instruction, pupunta (yung instruction) sa broker. Kukuhanin namin shares sa PCD, ito ang pang-settle. Parang nagkaliwaan lang kayo.
From covering retail banking, I’ve also noted that while banks like PSB do not offer certain investment products, as its president Pascual Garcia III testified today, they do routinely refer their customers to the head office of the mother bank, in this case Metrobank. Such referrals are coursed through the retail bank like PSB which then transacts with the head office or mother bank and charges a transaction fee for this service.
Because of this, it may be necessary for the Senate impeachment court to ask Metrobank and Bank of the Philippine Islands head offices whether CJ Corona has “foreign currency” investments with them. And not just dollars because some banks now have expanded their foreign currency-related transactions to euros and even yen.
Senator-judge Serge Osmeña seems to be on the same line of thinking
An hour ago, Osmeña asked PSB president and CEO Garcia whether dollar bonds could be classified as deposits under RA 6426.
And so I would like to ask the following questions of the Supreme Court and the senator-judges:
Is my theory valid or plain hogwash?
If valid, can the Senate impeachment court now ask the banks to disclose any and all dollar transactions of CJ Corona revolving around such products? I believe that the moment an amount of foreign currency deposit from CJ Corona left the safe haven of savings and/or time deposit it loses the umbrella of confidentiality during that period. And these become legitimate subjects of inquiry by the Senate impeachment court.
For this piece, I had tried to interview a well-known lawyer who teaches banking law. But he declined to speak to me. Likewise, I tried to obtain an interview with officials of the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas but no one would talk to me.
Because of this, I have decided to throw my questions to the public and see that maybe, just maybe, some lawyers and banking experts will respond and share what they know.
I am posting below RA 6426 –
REPUBLIC ACT No. 6426
AN ACT INSTITUTING A FOREIGN CURRENCY DEPOSIT SYSTEM IN THE PHILIPPINES, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES.
Section 1.Title.– This act shall be known as the “Foreign Currency Deposit Act of the Philippines.”
Section 2.Authority to deposit foreign currencies. – Any person, natural or juridical, may, in accordance with the provisions of this Act, deposit with such Philippine banks in good standing, as may, upon application, be designated by the Central Bank for the purpose, foreign currencies which are acceptable as part of the international reserve, except those which are required by the Central Bank to be surrendered in accordance with the provisions of Republic Act Numbered two hundred sixty-five (Now Rep. Act No. 7653).
Section 3.Authority of banks to accept foreign currency deposits. –The banks designated by the Central Bank under Section two hereof shall have the authority:
(1) To accept deposits and to accept foreign currencies in trust Provided, That numbered accounts for recording and servicing of said deposits shall be allowed;
(2) To issue certificates to evidence such deposits;
(3) To discount said certificates;
(4) To accept said deposits as collateral for loans subject to such rules and regulations as may be promulgated by the Central Bank from time to time; and
(5) To pay interest in foreign currency on such deposits.
Section 4.Foreign currency cover requirements.– Except as the Monetary Board may otherwise prescribe or allow, the depository banks shall maintain at all times a one hundred percent foreign currency cover for their liabilities, of which cover at least fifteen percent shall be in the form of foreign currency deposit with the Central Bank, and the balance in the form of foreign currency loans or securities, which loans or securities shall be of short term maturities and readily marketable. Such foreign currency loans may include loans to domestic enterprises which are export-oriented or registered with the Board of Investments, subject to the limitations to be prescribed by the Monetary Board on such loans. Except as the Monetary Board may otherwise prescribe or allow, the foreign currency cover shall be in the same currency as that of the corresponding foreign currency deposit liability. The Central Bank may pay interest on the foreign currency deposit, and if requested shall exchange the foreign currency notes and coins into foreign currency instruments drawn on its depository banks. (As amended by PD No. 1453, June 11, 1978.)
Depository banks which, on account of networth, resources, past performance, or other pertinent criteria, have been qualified by the Monetary Board to function under an expanded foreign currency deposit system, shall be exempt from the requirements in the preceding paragraph of maintaining fifteen percent (15%) of the cover in the form of foreign currency deposit with the Central Bank. Subject to prior Central Bank approval when required by Central Bank regulations, said depository banks may extend foreign currency loans to any domestic enterprise, without the limitations prescribed in the preceding paragraph regarding maturity and marketability, and such loans shall be eligible for purposes of the 100% foreign currency cover prescribed in the preceding paragraph. (As added by PD No. 1035.)
Section 5.Withdrawability and transferability of deposits.– There shall be no restriction on the withdrawal by the depositor of his deposit or on the transferability of the same abroad except those arising from the contract between the depositor and the bank.
Section 6.Tax exemption.– All foreign currency deposits made under this Act, as amended by PD No. 1035, as well as foreign currency deposits authorized under PD No. 1034, including interest and all other income or earnings of such deposits, are hereby exempted from any and all taxes whatsoever irrespective of whether or not these deposits are made by residents or nonresidents so long as the deposits are eligible or allowed under aforementioned laws and, in the case of nonresidents, irrespective of whether or not they are engaged in trade or business in the Philippines. (As amended by PD No. 1246, from. Nov. 21, 1977.)
Section 7. Rules and regulations. – The Monetary Board of the Central Bank shall promulgate such rules and regulations as may be necessary to carry out the provisions of this Act which shall take effect after the publications in the Official Gazette and in a newspaper of national circulation for at least once a week for three consecutive weeks. In case the Central Bank promulgates new rules and regulations decreasing the rights of depositors, rules and regulations at the time the deposit was made shall govern.
Section 8. Secrecy of foreign currency deposits. – All foreign currency deposits authorized under this Act, as amended by PD No. 1035, as well as foreign currency deposits authorized under PD No. 1034, are hereby declared as and considered of an absolutely confidential nature and, except upon the written permission of the depositor, in no instance shall foreign currency deposits be examined, inquired or looked into by any person, government official, bureau or office whether judicial or administrative or legislative, or any other entity whether public or private; Provided, however, That said foreign currency deposits shall be exempt from attachment, garnishment, or any other order or process of any court, legislative body, government agency or any administrative body whatsoever. (As amended by PD No. 1035, and further amended by PD No. 1246, prom. Nov. 21, 1977.)
Section 9. Deposit insurance coverage. – The deposits under this Act shall be insured under the provisions of Republic Act No. 3591, as amended (Philippine Deposit Insurance Corporation), as well as its implementing rules and regulations: Provided, That insurance payment shall be in the same currency in which the insured deposits are denominated.
Section 10. Penal provisions. – Any willful violation of this Act or any regulation duly promulgated by the Monetary Board pursuant hereto shall subject the offender upon conviction to an imprisonment of not less than one year nor more than five years or a fine of not less than five thousand pesos nor more than twenty-five thousand pesos, or both such fine and imprisonment at the discretion of the court.
Section 11. Separability clause. – The provisions of this Act are hereby declared to be separable and in the event one or more of such provisions are held unconstitutional, the validity of other provisions shall not be affected thereby.
Section 12. Repealing clause. – All acts, executive orders, rules and regulations, or parts thereof, which are inconsistent with any provisions of this Act are hereby repealed, amended or modified accordingly, without prejudice, however, to deposits made thereunder.
Section 12-A. Amendatory enactments and regulations. – In the event a new enactment or regulation is issued decreasing the rights hereunder granted, such new enactment or regulation shall not apply to foreign currency deposits already made or existing at the time of issuance of such new enactment or regulation, but such new enactment or regulation shall apply only to foreign currency deposits made after its issuance. (As added by PD No. 1246, prom. Nov. 21, 1977.)
Section 13. Effectivity. – This Act shall take effect upon its approval.
Approved, April 4, 1974
Mon says
Now that the Supreme Court has issued a TRO on the dollar account/s, does that mean that it has custody over the account/interest? assuming it wont lift the TRO anytime soon?
raissa says
I believe that the TRO merely refers to dollar time, savings and current deposits. Not to all other foreign currency outside these kinds of accounts.
So even while the SC has not lifted the TRO, these other kinds of accounts can be looked into by the Senate impeachment court.
mark baby says
@raissa
I share your view on this matter. I just hope that the banks will just cooperate and not go to the SC again to seek “guidance,” as what PSBank President Pascual Garcia III said before the TRO on FCDU deposits was issued.
GOD is on our side, Raissa. Let’s keep on keeping on.
Sui Generis III says
Interesting Points:
The defense claim only made CJ Corona a Pathological Liar when he made this declaration on
September 26, 2001. http://www.philstar.com/Article.aspx?articleId=134818
“From the very beginning, I have purposely stayed away from the financial and material affairs of my in-laws,” Corona said in a prepared statement.
If he purposely stayed away, How come this money is in his name up until December 12, 2011?
PSBank Manager Tiongson said Corona issued an authorization letter to the bank allowing his wife, Cristina, to withdraw the money. If it is BGE money how come his wife cannot withdraw the money without authorization letter from him?
Stay away my foot Thief Justice!
Suggestion for the prosecution:
Ask Ms. Tiongson, the Manager, how Mrs. Corona transferred the 36.2M funds of their closed 3 Time Deposits accounts. Its unlikely that they withdrew it in cash for practical reasons. If it is through Cashier’s Check or Manager’s check they can follow where those funds are transferred because wherever they deposited that check there will be a stamp at the back of the check showing the endorsement of the name of depository bank and the branch name. Usually it includes the account number of whoever makes the deposit If it is through debit memo transfer to another account then funds are still in PSBank.
There must be a paper trail to follow.
raissa says
Very good points.
I hope the Senate impeachment court and the prosecutors follow this up.
dtranscriber says
I think we may never know that as Cuevas said it’s not covered in the complaints entered by the House and transmitted to the Senate, parang hanggang 2010 SALN lang, not SALN 2011, so much so that it would not be right to discuss those accounts on impeachment proceeding.
However, in as much as he wants to block the discussion, Enrile told him in their debate on 2/16/2012 proceeding that if this accounts were found to come from earlier sources of income, meaning covered by the SALNs in question, then it can be discussed and taken as evidence (paper trail or the dates of transactions).
Napahiyaw ako nung napanood ko because come to think of it, mahirap ilaban ang isang indefensible position lalo na at my paper trail.
Mike Test says
Sui Generis III, the points you mentioned is already enough to convict him of Betrayal of Public Trust.
A lying Chief Justice caught in his own mouth. Ang kapal ng muka hindi pa mag resign.
Gerardo Barrica says
Sana pinapanalo nalang itong si Corona nang lotto nI pandak sa panahon niya para ma justify na ang lahat.
Ngayon maski paano nila e juggle ang alibi lalong lumalaki ang kasalanan nasama pati ang mga anak nila. Mag resign lang sana siya madami pa ang take home niya ang lahat. Ang problema ay hindi ma contented itong magasawa. Parang nanalo na sila sa Casino at ibig pang dalhin ang buong establishment. He was misled by his name the Crown. Kala niya he is the king and he could get away with crime.
Josef De Cordova says
It still does not change the fact that whatever evidence the prosecution has on Corona’s alleged bank accounts, peso or dollar, were acquired under questionable circumstances at the very least and may not be allowed as evidence when all is said and done. Doesn’t this disturb you at all?
raissa says
I have ANOTHER THEORY about this.
dtranscriber says
Sabi nga ng nakararami, waiting with bated breath, or pwede rin waiting with bathed breath. LOL>>>>
Gerardo Barrica says
Let us hear about your other theory Raissa? I am excited already.
raissa says
:)
noypi says
A whistleblower (whistle-blower or whistle blower)[1] is a person who tells the public or someone in authority about alleged dishonest or illegal activities (misconduct) occurring in a government department, a public or private organization, or a company. The alleged misconduct may be classified in many ways; for example, a violation of a law, rule, regulation and/or a direct threat to public interest, such as fraud, health/safety violations, and corruption. Whistleblowers may make their allegations internally (for example, to other people within the accused organization) or externally (to regulators, law enforcement agencies, to the media or to groups concerned with the issues).
…
Whistleblowers frequently face reprisal, sometimes at the hands of the organization or group which they have accused, sometimes from related organizations, and sometimes under law.
noypi says
from Wikipedia
elso cabangon says
What actually were these “questionable circumstances”? That a patriotic or some patriotic individuals came forward to give leads to the prosecutors regarding the bank accounts? That the impeachment court was persuaded to subpoena documents establishing those bank accounts containing balances much in excess compared to the declared figures in the CJ’s SALNs? What is really disturbing is how technicalities get in the way of establishing the truth.
chit jose says
then, if the Senator-Judges will close their eyes to the truth of Corona’s undeclared /misdeclared / undervalued assets and acquit him,
it’s time to acquit the senators too……
@josef de Cordova – hindi ka ba nasusuka sa ginagawa mong pagdepensa sa taong walang kaluliwa?
chit jose says
please read the piece of Sen. Esccudero on this:
http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/-depth/02/17/12/escudero-fruit-poisoned-tree-wont-apply
doesn’t this disturb you at all?
Yvonne says
Why not the IC Presiding Officer Senator Enrile just ask the Honorable CJ Corona to give his written prermission to open his dollar bank account?
I cannot help envisioning the following imagined scenario:
Senator Enrile: I’m requesting the Honorable CJ Corona to give this Court his written permission to open his dollar bank accounts.
Justice Cuevas: I object your Honor; it will violate my client’s right to self-incrimination.
Senator Enrile: But we do not believe there is anything incriminating in his dollar bank accounts. Is there?
Justice Cuevas: No, your Honor, so there is no point in opening this dollar bank account. To do so would be to engage in fishing expedition.
Senator Enrile: May I remind counsel that during the impeachment trial to former President Estrada, his refusal to open the second envelope sparked the EDSA 2 revolution that drove him out of power. And the irony of it is that the second envelope did not contain any incriminating information. I read a press report that President Estrada is partly blaming his former counsel Estelito Mendoza for his ouster because Mendoza was adamant in refusing to open the second envelope although President Estrada was inclined to allow it.
Justice Cuevas: I don’t understand what your Honor is leading to…
Senator Enrile: If there is no incriminating evidence, why not give this Court his written permission to open his dollar bank account in the interest of truth?
Oh well, the above scenario is just but a pigment of my imagination…
Josef De Cordova says
the law says the burden of proof lies on Corona’s accusers, not on him. tf the prosecution think he’s guilty of this or that, let them prove it.
Burdenof Proof says
Hindi ba sabi ni corona sa Decision vs Marcos money, pag di nagmatch ang kita sa accumulated wealth ang burden of proof, lilipat sa defense e bakit pagdating sa kanya di
puweden yung decision na yon. Napaka special naman ng taong to si Nato at hindi puwedeng iaplly sa kanya yung presumption. Parating may excuse. Bakit ba puro excuse etong taong to, puro takbo sa technicalities. Akala ko ba malinis siya. Nagpatato pa naman ako mg pangalan niya kasi akala ko inaapi talaga, akala ko hitsura ng kawalang malay, eh daig pa pala yung isnatcher sa Dasmarinas, harap harapang kukunin yung relo mo, nakatawa pa at utang na loob mo pa. Ang kapal naman.
pelang says
i pray, sana magkatotoo ang iyong imagination.
Johnny lin says
@Yvonne
The fact is the signature card contains notes indicating the dollar account has 700k deposit.
Cuevas could not claim fishing evidence anymore because prosecutors could counterclaim they already know there is a fish and it is a goldfish.
viewko says
Hello, Ma’am, I’ve been following your blogs for several weeks now, they’re very good reading. Very informative, very incisive, very well supported by facts, very everything.
I’m a retiree with some free time.
About the TRO, what The impeachment court should have done was to tell the Supreme Court not to meddle. Maybe they could have just thanked the Supreme Court for the reminder that there is such a Republic Act, but that the TRO has no effect on the Impeachment Court.
The Constitution is different from the Republic Acts. The latter are created by the Legislative Body, which includes the Senate which is now sitting as an Impeachment Court.
The Constitution says very clearly that the Impeachment Body has the sole power to try impeachment cases, no ifs or buts. The Supreme Court now has used a Republic Act, not the Constitution, to TRO some activities of the Impeachment Court. Is the Senate now bowing to the Interpretation by the Supreme Court on a Republic Act, which they themselves created? How sad.
Of course, after making it clear to the Supreme Court that they can not meddle, the Legislators could still so decide to not subpoena the dollar accounts, if these are not needed.
As it is, I fear that the impeachment court is the one that may end up impeached by the supreme court.
raissa says
What an insightful observation –
“As it is, I fear that the impeachment court is the one that may end up impeached by the supreme court.”
jorgebernas says
Ha ha ha kaya nga sabi ko noon, dapat ganito ang nakasulat sa saligang batas; THE SUPREME COURT HAS THE SOLE POWER OVER THE IMPEACHMENT COURT, dahil sa pagtalima/pagsunod nang impeachment court sa TRO nang supreme court na karamihan ay mga kaalyado/TUTA ni thief justice nato corona na rin naman TUTA ni Pandak/fake expresident gloria….joke joke lang….
Gerardo Barrica says
That will be a disgrace to our justice system. When our country is being run by corrupt officials they tend to protect each other. Sino ba sa kanila ang walang pinagtagoan? I am sure they should have dirty money stashed somewhere.
jimmyz says
Correct me if I’m wrong po. So kung bumili si Corona ng dollars from PSB at idineposit niya ito sa same bank, ibig sabihin ay protected ng RA 6426 ang dollar deposit pero ang transaction records sa pagbili niya ng dollars ay hindi. Hmmm…pwede!
raissa says
Basta nilagay lang niya sa time or dollar deposit.
Galing, ano.
CJ Corona was once a banker, too – he worked at DBP and Commercial Bank of Manila.
dtranscriber says
I watched the part of the proceedings in the Senate kanina and I think this was asked by Senator Osmena to PSB Garcia if the money used to buy foreign currency denominated investment products is considered a deposit or an investment, and I believe Garcia said that it’s an investment but that they did not offer such a service.
raissa says
That’s right, then senator-judges should follow up by asking –
Did you refer CJ Corona to head office?
Then head office trust department can be subpoenaed if it dealt with CJ Corona.
And if there are movements in an out of CJ Corona’s savings and time deposit accounts, it could mean these amounts are being placed in such investments.
killem says
good analysis. However, the points mention should be used in challenging the TRO of SC, in SC and not to be raised in impeachment proceeding because it involves question/interpretation of laws.
raissa says
why not?
Nothing to prevent the Senate from exercising its right.
baycas says
@killem,
Precisely, the theory on the FCDA concerns a question of law and best left to the “wisdom” of the Supreme Court to decide.
@raissa,
I hate to say that…considering my bias against Corona and the SC as the last “orbiter”.
In the other theory on the Senate exercising its right…
I believe you will need another “small lady” or a “tall guy” for the “fishing” of the UITFs, mutual funds, and the like…
Maria says
Under the Rules of Evidence, there is a presumption “that things which a person possess, or exercises acts of ownership over, are owned by him.” [Rule 131, Section 3 (k)]. The money in Renato Corona’s bank accounts are presumed to be OWNED by him.
If CJ Corona would like to disprove that the money in HIS accounts are not owned by him then he or his wife should testify. The question is — is he willing to testify? Is Cristina Corona willing to testify? We would all love to see that.
Since BGEI is already dissolved, they won’t be able to present any witness from BGEI anymore.
MamangUsisero says
Something is not right. If you have that substantial dollars, you will not park it in a dollar savings or current account in a local bank as this will only earn less than 1% p.a.
More than the amount of dollars, what is important is the source of those dollars. Are these dollars from peso conversions? Or, are these dollars payments for services/favors rendered???
james calderon says
hi… you need to really check Metrobank for any possible transfer of funds there… Also the banks now offer bancassurance products that yield much… you must check this also…
Johnny lin says
Latest news:
DEFENSE LAWYERS SAY CORONA 37M PESOS DEPOSITS IS BGE MONEY
Is there a written contract with BGE that Corona would be administrator of BGE liquid asset since BGE is insolvent per SEC?
Possiible crimes committed:
1. did he borrow it, how did he pay for it? Did he file a statement for AML with the bank on depositing the money. This statement will prove the money belonged to BGE. Without written proof, verbal acknowledgement is not acceptable because it is corporate property. Without reporting source of mooney to AML Corona violated AMLA.
2. Did he report the interest earned from deposits as income and added as assets in his ITR?
3. Why did he not include it in his 2011 SALN that he has the deposits in his name as liability?
Before, in 2003 SALN he declared he borrowed money from BGE and said he did not interfere with BGE money?
4. IF Corona was keeping BGE money for safekeeping, is he a partner to defraud the other stockholders of BGE from their shares? Mrs. Corona has a pending case of estafa or it could be revived by stockholders or SEC for corporate inquiry and by BIR for taxation purposes.
5. Is Corona hiding the money from SEC upon corporate investigation by SEC on how the corporation was dissolved and assets distributed?
All these become potential criminal acts.
Is Defense now admitting their client may have committed crimes by laundering BGE money!
MamangUsisero says
Corona’s wife has revealed that the Php 37 million in CJ’s accounts are owned by Basa Guidote Enterprises Inc. (BGEI) and that CJ has just deposited the amounts to his account for convenience as Mrs. Corona is always in Baguio. They did not bare such details before because she was sued by her relatives for estafa. The Php 37 million was the proceeds from the sale of BGEI property to the City of Manila.
Even assuming that indeed that said monies were sourced legally as proceeds from a sale of property, this revelation by Mrs. Corona begs more questions than answers:
1. If the sale is between BGEI and the City of Manila, check payment/s will definitely be in the name of BGEI. How come the monies ended up in the personal account of CJ?? Even assuming the bank branch accommodated the check and allowed the deposits to the personal account of CJ, are deposits reported by the bank as suspicious transaction as required under AMLA?
2. If CJ does not own the monies, then it should have been reflected as a Liability in his SALN. Another way is to disclose the said monies as funds for safekeeping under his SALN. But were the monies properly disclosed in his SALN? Can he invoke accounting ignorance even as he was once worked for SGV and 2 banks?
3. If CJ willingly accepted the monies and deposited the same to his account, is he then acting as dummy for Mrs. Corona to hide the said monies from other BGEI shareholders? Is this a clear case of estafa, racketeering or what? Is this a high crime? Is this betrayal of public trust?
These beg answers, CJ.
raissa says
Your’e right.
baycas says
Track back here in Ma’am Raissa’s blog post entitled “Relative warned JBC in 2001:
Corona could bring ‘disrepute’ to SC”…
http://goo.gl/Nj6VO
Maria says
2011 SALN is not yet due so cannot be used as a basis yet.
On interest on deposits – the bank is supposed to withhold the tax on interest and the account holder does not need to include in income tax return. HOWEVER, I wonder what the level of detail the bank reports to the BIR. For instance, do they report to the BIR the names of the account holders from where the interest is withheld as well as the amount of the principal. I’m assuming that this info would be needed by the BIR to verify if the computation is correct.
I like your point on the estafa. Do the Basa aunts and uncles have heirs? They can pursue this case. 37M is a lot of money. I think with all the available info, they can find a lawyer who’s willing to take on the case on contingency basis.
Johnny lin says
2011 filing is for year 2010 SALN. 2012 filing is for 2011. He deposited the money in 2010, withdrew them Dec 2011.
Maria says
@johnny lin – oh okay, that’s what you meant. SALN as of 31 December 2010 filed in 2011. In that case, yes, the PSBank deposits were definitely not declared.
There’s a comparative summary of Corona properties vs. SALN declaration as of 2010 in Inquirer . There was non/misdeclaration of about PhP55 Million (inclusive of properties and cash). That’s PhP55 Million! I don’t think they can justify that amount under clerical error.
http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/files/2012/02/Temporary-Corona-SALN1.jpg
http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/147035/%e2%80%9855-million-reasons-to-convict-corona%e2%80%99
Baltazar says
We are only talking about the Peso accounts + properties here right? This is already a strong ground for the prosecution to rest their case BUT it will be stronger if the foreign currency accounts will be included – or at least the paper trails be scrutinized because who knows, there might be something bigger behind those paper trails. The foreign currency account may just be a tip of the iceberg.. Seeing Corona’s character, he will take advantage of his position to do things behind the curtain.
Just another wild conspiracy theory – if the Arroyos will be successful in bringing home Jose Pidal’s cadaver, they will surely trample all Aleli’s claims including the Jose Pidal accounts and Corona’s (God forbid) magic touch will be badly needed so he really has to stay in power. It’s for his one and only demi-God. See, he can afford to drag his family to this miry shame.
Baltazar says
Mrs. Corona has been vindicated of the estafa case according to the CA decision in this thread:
http://raissarobles.com/2012/01/31/relative-warned-jbc-in-2001-corona-could-bring-disrepute-to-sc/
How did she (Tina) get the full control of the corporation when she is not even a stockholder. I’m going back to my similar question on the same thread:
.. that is if ever the 37M was the expropriation proceeds. I remember, earlier in the impeachment trial, Sr. Cuevas has shown us a 30+M check – is it the same money or they are different? If the money indeed belongs to BGEI, what’s the rationale in keeping it in different accounts? And different opening dates? And under Renato’s name? There is obviously a staggered flow of cash – not a single salvo. Did he invest BGEI’s money? Or just like what you said, laundered the money?
Paging Tio Apen Cuevas..please explain as we all know that your client will never do so.
raissa says
No.
The estafa case has never been resolved in court.
It is the libel case the Mrs. Corona filed against her relatives that resulted in a ruling.
Baltazar says
The estafa case prior to the libel has been dismissed by the Office of the Prosecutor.The CA decision referred to that in page 13. I just don’t know if there are other pending estafa cases just like what Johnny Lin mentioned.
raissa says
Thanks.
Johnny lin says
I said estafa pending or could be revived. Don’t know it’s status because I just read it in Rappler few weeks ago.
BGE money alibi would just bring more questions to Coronas than a simple answer to their headaches. Defense had no other excuse except to use this alibi because it was the only known source of money the Coronas could rely.
They had been stalling for long time to search for people to save their predicament, the way Iggy saved his brother Mike Arroyo. But they could not find anybody staking their necks with Corona.
They tried to find businessmen to pretend they mortgaged their Prime condos for 25million pesos with the contract antedated last Jan 2011, but the Chinese tai pan refused to do it. FG ang Bobby Ongpin could not help him either saying they were under tight surveillance, besides Ongpin does not want his name back in front page unnecessarily.
Defense is in idle mode waiting till Corona gives explanation on dollar and peso sources. The attack scheme towards Pnoy and disinformation brainstorm of Tatad did not only fail but also smashed back to the face of the lawyers resulting to some misunderstanding between Cuevas and Esguerra/Roy team. Remember Cuevas was opposed to that press conference last Sunday, still had that conscience of guilt with his faith.
Gerardo Barrica says
That would be a nice move, setting an example that tapusin na talaga ang lahi ni Nato Corona.
baycas says
Thanks.
—–
“Basa-Guidote, Coronas feuding since ’89”
http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/147573/basa-guidote-coronas-feuding-since-89
baycas says
Thanks, Baltazar.
Johnny lin says
Maybe, DOJ could assist the Basas, revive the estafa case if there is evidence of fraudulent acquisition of corporate assets.
Perplexing is the action of Coronas not to claim before the 34 M their own money. Why do they want to keep it as BGE money when the corporation is unllicensed since 2003 since they were holding the money.
It would have been easier if they claimed the money as their own then they could have justified all their purchases of properties because there was legitimate source of money.
Unless, they did not want to pay the inheritance tax or they were afraid the corporate legal problem could come up again and the money could be traced to their personal accounts. And when somebody asked them why they had large sum of money in the bank, they would just easily answer its BGE money to avoid suspicion they have unexplained wealth. At that time they did not anticipate that Corona would be impeached.
Fast forward, he was impeached thus they withdrew their own money on day of impeachment. When asked about the money they would stick to their original alibi that it was BGE money.
Their problem is connecting the manager check to BGE because it was issued in their name. Suppose there was really a BGE account with 34 M deposit, so adding that check would double the asset of BGE plus all the accumulated interests.
Mrs. Corona would be forced to answer same questions to BGE asset:
1. Where did the money come from?
2. How did BGE earn money when it was defunct, non functioning, without ITR filings without fraudulent action from them.
Corona lawyers compounded the problems of their client by making the claim on BGE money because they will open the corporation and the Coronas to further investigation. Do they really think that what they say publicly will be the end of investigation from what happened to the money? Prosecutors will have to show the 34 M check in Corona’s name, then if Defense will claim in court it’s BGE they will open new avenue to investigate if their alibi is true. At the moment the media announcement ishearsay, admissible in court. Or its trial balloon again if public will accept it.
Corona is mad at PNoy because PNoy is asking the people to be vigilant and don’t be fooled by Defense lawyer saying BGE is the source of money of Corona and urging to open the accounts. It was their last line of defense of Corona publicly demolished by PNoy.
Johnny lin says
Correction
Hearsay, not admissible in court
jorgebernas says
Tama ka raissa,
Dumating na ang KARMA sa mga sinungaling/magnanakaw na si thief justice nato corona. hindi talaga natutulog ang DIYOS, walang lihim na hindi mabubunyag at sigurado ako magkakasakit ang mag asawang ito pagdating nang panahon….Thank you GOD at unti unting nalalantad ang katutuhanan….
jorgebernas says
@ raissa
Dito pa lang nakikita ko na ang kasinungalingan nang mag asawang coruptna.
Dito palang malalaman ko na, hindi ipinatago sa 3 PSBank saving accnt, ni renato ang 37 million na BGEI proceeds dahil hindi naman sila nagkakaintindihan diba? hinanbla nga si cristina nang kamag anak nito nang kasong Estafa dahil nagsisinungaling/ hindi nagreremit nang kita noon nang BGEI at wala pa rin nangyari hanggang ngayon sa kasong ito.at ang masakit ay hinabla ni cristina ang mga kamag anak nito nang kasong Libel at nanalo siya? kaya maliwanag na hindi silang magkamag anak nagkakaintindihan., so bakit nila ipagkatiwala ang 37 million sa 3 saving accnt. ni thief justice nato corona? wala ba silang BGEI families nang kanya kanyang Bank accnt.? ipapaputol ko itong ulo ko kong mali itong judgement/comments ko….Bahala na….basta ilabas ang katutuhanan?
Thief justice nato corona resign kana dahil ako ang nahihiya ka kakapal nang mukha mo? You should not stay a second in supreme court dahil nababahiran sila dahil sa kabulukan mo….
Boy Abundat says
Hindi kaya si Virgilio Macaventa o malapit sa kanya ang nagtatago sa pangalang “Mcmacavinta”, ang naglabas ng balitang meron daw “EVA” .
Kasi na invlove na siya sa libel case kaya need na nya ng pseudonym Madami siya siguradong alam sa baho ni Corona
Bernard Munoz says
The Bank considers UITF, mutual funds, money market placement, Treasury Bills and other securities of similar nature as NON -TRADITIONAL BANK DEPOSITS. The Bank act only as Trustee (administers financial assets on behalf of another) to engage in fiduciary business/investment management activities. This accounts are usually handled by the Trust Banking Group of a Bank authorized by the BSP to engage in this type of business.
Since this are called NON-TRADITIONAL DEPOSITS it is my humble opinion that these are not covered by RA 6426 and Amendments ( PD No. 1035 (1976) & PD No. 1246 (1977) ) because this laws covers only the TRADITIONAL FOREIGN CURRENCY DEPOSITS AND FOREIGN CURRENCY LOANS.
Moreover, BSP requires The Bank to keep SEPARATE AND DISTINCT BOOK AND RECORDS on trust, other fiduciary and investment & management accounts from the books and records of its other businesses and requires to file a SEPARATE Financial Report.
Furthermore, it is subject to External Independent audit as per BSP Circular No. 653 S. 2009.
http://www.bsp.gov.ph/regulations/regulations.asp?type=1&id=2379
If it is subject to Independent External Audit it is therefore not covered by the infamous Draconian Law (RA 6426). That includes all Corona’s Dollar held in Trust.
As you pointed in your Article Metrobank is the Motherbank of PSBank. Here is the link to Metrobank 2010 Financial Report as published in their website:
http://www.metrobank.com.ph/ViewImage.asp?id=2144
In page 7 & 8 is the Independent Auditors’ Report by SGV’s Aris C. Malantic. The audit includes accounts Held in Trust.
raissa says
Thanks a lot for this.
Bernard Munoz says
I’m not familiar with Government inter-departmental protocol but since BSP is a government agency and keep records of all Banks Trust Books and Records, Can the House prosecutors peruse this to verify if Corona has dollar and peso trust accounts?
raissa says
I’m pleased with the comments in this story.
I’m also learning.
Keep ’em coming.
Andy Doyen says
I am hooked reading ma’am Raissa’s posts and I am tickled pink reading Johnny lin’s comments also. Yeah Johnny, keep ’em coming… like the Knickerbocker’s Jeremy Lin.
demie says
magaling ka talaga mam,
andami na naming natutunan, sana araw na to para di na kami magbabasa pa ng iba minsan kasi tataas na lang bp ko sa mga walang kwentang komento na nababasa ko! hehehehe
For us, you are great!
Ingat po!
raissa says
salamat, demie.
Mel says
Raïssa, you raised a good point re REPUBLIC ACT No. 6426, a distinction on Foreign Currency (FC) deposits accounts and FC non-deposit accounts in the form of ‘sovereign bonds, in commercial papers, unit investment trust funds (UITFs) or mutual funds’.
Expanded Subpoena or Just Ask More Detailed Questions?
Witnesses PS Bank Pres. Garcia and BPI Official’s nature of testimony and extent of participation are limited in the Subpoenas they received from SI. Since the allowable Q & A hearing are limited to the Peso accounts, minus FCD accounts of Corona, the House-Prosecutors may request the Senate-Impeachment to extend the scope of the subpoenas to include inquiries into ‘sovereign bonds, … or mutual funds‘ where R Corona may have with the banks mentioned.
OR while these witnesses are seated for the Q & A hearing, additional questions can be raised by the Senate-Judges to verify or request witnesses to supply the SI with ADDITIONAL information if their banks act as a broker for R Corona in so far as for ‘sovereign bonds, … or mutual funds‘.
If the House-Prosecutors would take your cue, it may well ask the Senate-Judges to invite a Professional or Academic witness to expound further about the limitation of REPUBLIC ACT No. 6426 (for FC deposits ONLY) and non-coverage to ‘sovereign bonds, … or mutual funds‘.
AND when Senate-Judges votes or agrees that it is so, further inquiries can be made to divulge any other accounts which R Corona may have with the banks in the form of ‘sovereign bonds, … or mutual funds‘.
Would R Corona cry foul?
HE currently has a Supreme Court TRO for the SI to stop enquiries on his FCD accounts with PS Bank.
The Senate-Impeachment can raise a clarification with the Supreme Court’s TRO if it includes ‘sovereign bonds, in commercial papers, unit investment trust funds (UITFs) or mutual funds’.
OR IF the Senate Impeachment Presiding Officer JPE is confident that the SC TRO doesn’t include ‘sovereign bonds, … or mutual funds‘, then the Senate Impeachment proceedings can at liberty ask these questions and so order the banks to supply the Senate-Judges with those information. IF TRUE, another ommission(s) to R Corona’s SALN and ITR obligations. Another reason the BIR to investigate the Coronas for tax evasion.
A CAN OF WORMS, or pandoras box where R Corona’s case will unravel a lot of other tax evaders scheme.
——–
Read related news links:
– Corona bank accounts info authentic, says PSBank president
– Senate subpoenas Mrs. Corona’s accounts
– Wife’s ‘assets’ not in Corona’s SALN – prosecutors
– Rep. Banal: Yes, I approached PSBank manager
– SC thumbs down requests for confidential court records