Defense questions AMLC’s lumping of Duterte, Carpio transactions

The defense of Vice President Sara Duterte on Monday questioned the Anti-Money Laundering Council’s decision to aggregate financial transactions involving her and her husband, lawyer Manases “Mans” Carpio, arguing that the impeachment court did not specifically order the agency to present the confidential data in that form.

Defense lawyer Mark Vinluan established during cross-examination that the AMLC could have submitted the number of covered transaction reports involving Duterte and Carpio without totaling the amounts involved.

“Did this honorable impeachment court specifically direct you to use aggregate amounts or yung mga totals in presenting confidential data and information on VP Sara and Attorney Mans?” Vinluan asked.

“No specific instruction on that, Your Honor,” AMLC Secretariat Executive Director Ronel Buenaventura replied.

Vinluan then asked whether the court had issued a subpoena specifically requiring the AMLC to prepare the tabular summaries containing the aggregate amounts.

“Specifically, no, Your Honor,” Buenaventura replied.

Buenaventura said the tabular summaries were prepared in connection with the court’s 21 July subpoena. He also confirmed that the agency complied with a 29 September request from House prosecution member Rep. Gerville Luistro to indicate the aggregate amounts.

The defense lawyer pointed out that the AMLC could have presented only the number of transactions rather than adding the amounts together.

“Pero dahil tinotal niyo yung mga figures, mas malaki tuloy tignan, tama?” he asked.

Prosecutor Mae Divinagracia objected that the question was argumentative and speculative. Presiding Officer Sen. Francis “Chiz” Escudero allowed the witness to answer but told Vinluan to move to his next point.

Seventy of the reports overlap between the two, resulting in 666 combined reports after duplicates are removed. But the number of covered transaction reports does not, by itself, establish that the transactions were illegal or suspicious.

Buenaventura earlier explained that covered transaction reports are filed by covered persons, such as banks, when transactions meet reporting thresholds under the anti-money laundering law. Suspicious transaction reports, meanwhile, are based on specified indicators and may be filed regardless of the amount involved.

Escudero earlier rejected a defense objection to the presentation of older financial records, saying the documents covered by the court’s subpoena were relevant to establishing Duterte’s financial baseline.

“This is part of the subpoenaed documents which, when the court issued the subpoena, said is part of establishing the baseline of the respondent’s net worth,” Escudero said.

The prosecution is presenting the AMLC records under Article II of the impeachment articles, which alleges that she amassed wealth manifestly disproportionate to her lawful income and failed to fully and truthfully disclose her and Carpio’s assets, liabilities and net worth.