Defense: AMLC totals make figures look bigger

The defense of Vice President Sara Duterte on Monday questioned the Anti-Money Laundering Council’s (AMLC) decision to aggregate financial transactions involving her and her husband, lawyer Manases “Mans” Carpio, saying the impeachment court did not specifically order the agency to total the amounts.

Defense counsel Mark Vinluan established during cross-examination that the AMLC could have presented the number of covered transaction reports involving Duterte and Carpio without combining the amounts.

“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 tabular summaries containing the aggregate amounts.

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

Buenaventura said the 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 instead of adding their monetary values together.

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

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

The AMLC reported that 70 transaction reports overlapped between Duterte and Carpio, resulting in 666 combined reports after duplicates were removed.

The defense sought to distinguish the number of reports from any finding that the transactions were unlawful or suspicious.

Buenaventura earlier explained that covered transaction reports are filed by banks and other covered persons when transactions meet reporting thresholds under the Anti-Money Laundering Act. Suspicious transaction reports, meanwhile, are based on specified indicators and may be filed regardless of the amount involved.

The filing of a covered transaction report does not by itself establish that a transaction is illegal or suspicious.

The defense has also challenged the use and disclosure of AMLC information involving Duterte and Carpio, citing confidentiality requirements under Republic Act 9160, or the Anti-Money Laundering Act.

Vinluan earlier asked whether AMLC data could be used for political purposes.

“In other words, hindi po pwedeng gamitin ang mga datos na hawak ng AMLC para sa pamumulitika, tama?” Vinluan asked.

“Yes,” Buenaventura answered.

Asked to apply that prohibition to the records presented in the impeachment proceedings, Buenaventura declined to interpret the provision.

“All I can answer, Your Honor, is that as provided under the law the AMLA shall not be used for political prosecution or harassment,” Buenaventura said.

Escudero earlier rejected the defense’s objections, ruling that the AMLA’s confidentiality provision does not prevent the impeachment court from compelling the AMLC to produce records through a lawful and particularized subpoena.

Escudero said the documents 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 using the AMLC records to support Article II, which alleges that Duterte amassed wealth manifestly disproportionate to her lawful income and failed to fully and truthfully disclose her and Carpio’s assets, liabilities and net worth.