Money laundering charges still pending vs 6 RCBC officers

Money laundering charges against six officers of the Rizal Commercial Banking Corporation (RCBC) are still pending with the Department of Justice (DOJ), Prosecutor General Richard Anthony Fadullon said yesterday.

This means that the case of the $81million cyber heist in Bangladesh Bank in 2016 is not yet closed despite the conviction last week for money laundering of RCBC’s former branch manager Maia Santos Deguito.

Fadullon said the complaint filed by the Anti-Money Laundering Council (AMLC) in November, 2016 against former RCBC treasurer Raul Victor Tan, national sales director for retail banking Ismael Reyes, regional sales director for retail banking Brigitte Capiña, direct sales director Nestor Pineda, customer service head for Jupiter business center Romualdo Agarrado, and senior customer relations officer for Jupiter business center Angela Ruth Torres has not been resolved by the DOJ.

“There is no resolution yet from the preliminary investigation earlier conducted on that case,” he said in a text message.

However, Fadullon could not say when would the resolution of the complaint would be handed down.

“We will check on the status of the case first before we can give a timetable on when the resolution could be released,” he said.

Tan resigned in April 2016, “out of decency and honor,” while Torres was dismissed by the bank after she and Deguito were found by the RCBC to have been involved in the money laundering scheme.

Earlier, Bangladesh Ambassador Asad Alam Siam called on the DOJ to resolve the charges against other RCBC officers as he revealed that their government also plans to file a lawsuit in New York against executives of RCBC.

Tan and the five other RCBC officers were charged with violation of Section 4(f) of the Anti-Money Laundering Act.

The complaint alleged that “in consequence of his failure to order enhanced due diligence on the high-risk accounts and to continue the hold on the beneficiary accounts, Tan facilitated the commission of money laundering under Section 4(f) of the AMLA, as amended.”

It claimed “there were suspicious indications of violations of the AMLA, as amended, or red flags, which deserved further investigations by RCBC.”

“Tan was in a position to order enhanced due diligence based on the red flags. Tan could have convened the anti-money laundering committee to act on these red flags,” the complaint also alleged.