Former Rizal Commercial Banking Corp. branch manager Maia Santos Deguito has asked the Makati City Regional Trial Court to reconsider its decision that convicted her of seven counts of money laundering in connection with the $81-million cyber heist in Bangladesh Bank in 2016.
In her motion, Deguito said that Judge Cesar Untalan misappreciated the facts and evidence presented in her case and wrongfully convicted her of money laundering.
She said that Section 4 (f) of Republic Act No. 9140, the Anti-Money Laundering Act, provides that “money laundering is committed by any person who, knowing that any monetary instrument or property represents, involves, or relates to the proceeds of any unlawful activity…performs or fails to perform any act as a result of which he facilitates the offense of money laundering….”
However, Deguito said none of the elements of money laundering was present in the case filed against her.
She pointed out that when the trial court held that she should be made criminally liable for violation of the RA 9140, it could be referring to accounts which were opened in the names of Michael Cruz, Jessie Christopher Lagrosa, Alfred Vergara, and Enrico Vasquez in 2015.
But she said that there was no monetary instrument or property and no proceeds of any against her, and the trial court even admitted that from 2015 when the accounts were opened there was no transaction that was entered and recorded in the said bank accounts.
She said: “Without the existence of an unlawful activity, its proceeds, and a monetary instrument or property that represents, involves, or relates to such proceeds, then there can be no knowledge of these facts as well. Clearly, no money laundering offense committed when the accounts were opened in May 2015.”
At the same time, Deguito contested the court’s findings that she had full and prior knowledge of the illegal source of funds.
“This conclusion, however, was not based on direct proof of the element of knowledge, as the prosecution failed to present any. Instead, it was only presumed by the Honorable Court from the alleged failure of accused to do what the Honorable Court believes she should have done,” she said in her motion.
She insisted she had no authority to stop the withdrawal of the huge amounts.
“Another reason why accused could not have stopped the transactions was because RCBC higher-ups actually put a hold on the transactions, but then lifted the hold after determining that the remittances were valid,” she explained. (Rey Panaligan)
