(Publisher’s note: Although the court records of the
investigation by the Anti-Money Laundering Council are a tightly kept secret
although they are public documents, Malaya obtained these documents.)
he judge said
that the investigation of the AMLC is the probable reason for denying the
omnibus motion and the motion to dismiss.
The judge declared that the motion to dismiss filed by
Alvarez is hereby denied.
Alvarez filed an urgent motion after his motion to dismiss
was denied. His lawyers alleged among other things that he received the omnibus
order (of denial) dated May 2, 2006 only on May 9, or seven days later.
The lawyers alleged that the "AMLC might immediately enforce
the May 2 order before the court could hear Alvarez motion for reconsideration."
Alvarez filed a motion for reconsideration on May 15, 2006
claiming that "the factual basis relied on by the Court does not support the
conclusion that AMLC has the right to have an order or expanded inquiry into the
bank accounts of Alvarez."
Expectedly, the AMLC assisted by the Office of the Solicitor
General as counsel, filed an opposition to the motion for reconsideration of
Alvarez.
Among the allegations of the counsel were "transactions in
the accounts, specially the peso and dollar accounts of Mr. Liongson (name of
bank omitted) indicate significant money laundering activities and /or
facilitation of unlawful activities.
The AMLC also told the court that bank accounts and
transactions were extensively used to perpetuate the corrupt kickback in the
construction of Terminal III.
AMLC also said "layers or corporations were created in order
to avoid traces of dummyship which led to the execution of the Liongson
consultancy agreement."
Finally, the AMLC told the court that "layering (is)
concealing the illicit proceeds of the corrupt transaction…accomplished through
the use of bank accounts of Fraport AG, Fraport Phils. Services from which
accounts monies were paid to Piatco, Philippine Airport & Ground Services,
Philippine Terminal, Inc. (PTI) and Wintrack Builders."
On July 5, Judge Antonio Eugenio denied the motion for
reconsideration of Alvarez declaring that the substantial argument in the motion
has no merit.
Alvarez filed a notice of appeal on July 12, 2006 warning
that he is appealing to the Court of Appeals both on questions of fact and law
1) the order dated Jan. 12, 2006 granting the application of the Republic of the
Philippines represented by AMLC 2) the Omnibus order dated May 2 which lifted
the order staying the enforcement of the inquiry into the deposits and 3) July
5, 2005 order denying Alvarez motion for reconsideration of May 15, 2006 which
was received on July 11, 2006.
Acting rather swiftly, Manila Judge Antonio Eugenio ruled
that "acting on the urgent motion and manifestation filed by Alvarez,…applicant
Anti-Money Laundering Council or its representative, is directed to refrain from
enforcing the order" to proceed with the investigation of the questioned
accounts.
Alvarez also filed an urgent motion for clarification on July
24 telling the Court that "it has come to the attention of Alvarez that inquiry
into the bank accounts of the other persons in the AMLC petition are being
undertaken in violation" of previous rulings which have not become final and
executory.
This time, Alvarez is taking the cudgels for other persons
whose accounts are similarly under investigation.
Judge Antonio declared on July 25 that the court hereby
clarifies that the ex-parte order of the court dated Jan. 12, 2006 cannot be
implemented against the deposits or accounts of any of the persons enumerated in
the AMLC application until the appeal of Alvarez is finally resolved, otherwise,
the appeal would be rendered moot and academic or even nugatory."
The AMLC filed an urgent omnibus motion which among others,
sought "to expunge Pantaleon Alvarez’ notice of appeal dated July 12, 2006."
The Office of the Solicitor General told the court that "…the
AMLC may inquire into or examine any particular deposit or investment with any
banking institution or non-bank financial institution upon order of any
competent court in cases of violation of (the anti-money laundering law) when it
has been established that there is probable cause that deposits or investments
are related to an unlawful activity…except that no order shall be required in
cases involving unlawful activities."
Acting on a notice from the Court of Appeals that an appeal
has been filed, Judge Eugenio ruled that the urgent motion of the Republic of
the Philippines "is held in abeyance pending resolution of the petition for
certiorari."
Lilia Cheng, one of several persons whose accounts are under
investigation by the AMLC, filed an application for a TRO or writ or preliminary
injunction with the Court of Appeals.
She alleged among other things that the AMLC has no authority
to inquire into accounts "where the bank account owner, co-owner or other
relevant party is an individual who is not the subject of any criminal
investigation, or on the basis of purely civil proceedings or inquiries such as
civil actions and arbitration proceedings."
She also wanted the Court of Appeals to declare that the
anti-money laundering law does not have retroactive effect and strict
confidentiality of bank accounts…remain in force and effective in respect of
bank accounts, monetary instruments or banking transactions opened, entered into
or occurring prior to Oct. 17, 2001 when the anti-money laundering law took
effect.
