[av_textblock size=” font_color=” color=” av-desktop-hide=” av-medium-hide=” av-small-hide=” av-mini-hide=” av-medium-font-size=” av-small-font-size=” av-mini-font-size=”]
[/av_textblock]
[av_one_full first min_height=” vertical_alignment=” space=” custom_margin=” margin=’0px’ padding=’0px’ border=” border_color=” radius=’0px’ background_color=” src=” background_position=’top left’ background_repeat=’no-repeat’ animation=”]
[av_heading heading=’AN INDEPENDENT VIEW’ tag=’h3′ style=’blockquote modern-quote’ size=’29’ subheading_active=’subheading_below’ subheading_size=’15’ padding=’10’ color=” custom_font=” av-medium-font-size-title=” av-small-font-size-title=” av-mini-font-size-title=” av-medium-font-size=” av-small-font-size=” av-mini-font-size=” admin_preview_bg=”]
BY NEIL HONEYMAN
[/av_heading]
[av_textblock size=’18’ font_color=” color=” av-medium-font-size=” av-small-font-size=” av-mini-font-size=” admin_preview_bg=”]
MANY cases involving misconduct result from inadequate oversight (supervision). If the supervision improved, there would be less misconduct.
The perusal of documents of former Commission on Elections (Comelec) chair Andres Bautista by his estranged wife Patricia has allegedly yielded 35 bank accounts with a total balance of P329 million at Luzon Development Bank (LDP). Did LDP report these large deposits to the Anti-Money Laundering Council (AMLC)? It should have done.
The deposits have aroused the interest of the Senate committee on banks, financial institutions and currencies whose chairman Sen. Francis Escudero has said that Bautista has not responded to three invitations to attend inquiries into his alleged unexplained wealth. I am not surprised. It is quite possible that Bautista cannot say anything that is simultaneously truthful, helps Senate inquiries, and does not incriminate himself.
Escudero says that Bautista is still required to appear in Senate even if he signed a bank waiver that would allow the committee to look at his LDB accounts. Agreed. But it is not likely that LDB statements provide, other than transaction dates, any useful narrative.
How can the committee proceed?
Firstly, can AMLC help?
In any investigation, it is not always a good idea to approach the accused first. There are also others who can help the inquiry.
Before he was Comelec chair, Bautista was head of the President’s Commission on Good Government. An oxymoron say the unkind ones.
Who was supervising Bautista?
In 2010, Vilma Bautista, formerly personal secretary of Imelda Marcos based in New York, sold an art treasure, Claude Monet’s Waterlilies. The eventual purchaser, Alan Howard, a British hedge fund manager, paid $43 million. Of this amount, Vilma Bautista received $32 million.
Vilma omitted to pay New York City and New York State taxes on the artwork. This resulted in a case being filed against her. The taxes amounted to $3.5 million. In 2014 Vilma was found guilty in Manhattan Supreme Court and sentenced to 25 years imprisonment. She appealed and last week the judge reduced her sentence to two-to-six years. This reflects a change in attitude of the Court. Why? Vilma’s age cannot be the only factor.
What happened to the money obtained by Vilma? The Senate committee should make inquiries.
Other than Andres Bautista, there are three key players: Alan Howard, Robert Swift, a Hawaii-based lawyer who represents 9,539 Marcos victims, and Vilma.
Can any of these be induced to help the committee?
Unlikely, but not impossible.
Howard owns the painting which has doubtful provenance because the Philippine government has a strong claim. This reduces the artwork’s value and if the government presses the claim, he may lose it altogether.
Or will he?
In addition to paying $43 million, Howard also paid $10 million to Swift for distribution to Swift’s clients, the sufferers of Marcosian depredations. Swift made efforts to contact clients but it is not clear how many he reached and how much they were paid. Did Howard receive reassurances from anybody, including PCGG, that if he paid $10 million his right to the painting would not be challenged?
What, if anything, has Vilma done with the after-tax proceeds of the painting, amounting to $28 million?
Can the committee access the transcripts of Vilma’s trial and appeal from the Manhattan Supreme Court?
Answers to these questions, I believe, would help the committee with its inquiries as to Andres Bautista’s unexplained wealth. (jbabueg@yahoo.co.uk)/PN
[/av_textblock]
[/av_one_full]
