6 hours ago
3
Upgrade to High-Speed Internet for only ₱1499/month!
Enjoy up to 100 Mbps fiber broadband, perfect for browsing, streaming, and gaming.
Visit Suniway.ph to learn
Neil Jayson Servallos - The Philippine Star
October 7, 2026 | 12:00am
Senator-judge Raffy Tulfo asks Anti-Money Laundering Council (AMLC) Executive Director Atty. Ronel Buenaventura if he is still nervous while testifying during the second day of the impeachment trial on October 6, 2026.
Ryan Baldemor / The Philippine STAR
MANILA, Philippines — Apart from China, eight other countries – some of which are notorious for money laundering – had been the sources of nearly P50 million in remittances that flowed into a food company linked to Vice President Sara Duterte’s husband Manases Carpio.
Records flashed on screen yesterday on Day 34 of the impeachment trial of Duterte showed that inflows of funds to CALE88 Foods Corp. also came from Russia, Ukraine, Kazakhstan, Lithuania, South Africa, Tajikistan, the United Arab Emirates and the United States.
Senator-judges pressed for a breakdown of the foreign funds and questioned the Anti-Money Laundering Council (AMLC) if it had ever moved to freeze the accounts.
Based on data flashed by House of Representatives prosecutors, CALE88 received P12.8 million from Russia, P12 million from Ukraine, P7.24 million from Kazakhstan, P6.23 from Lithuania, P6 million from South Africa, P3.8 million from Tajikistan, P684,456 from UAE and nearly P600,000 from the US.
Sen. Raffy Tulfo grilled AMLC executive director Ronel Buenaventura on whether the AMLC had ever unilaterally petitioned the Court of Appeals (CA) for a freeze order on CALE88’s accounts or demanded contracts justifying the purpose of the deposits.
Tulfo also questioned why the council did not flag the non-Chinese inflows despite the reputation of some of the countries as money laundering haven. “Don’t you find it suspicious that a large part of the funds that went to CALE88 came from countries with critical reputation for money laundering like Russia, Kazakhstan, Tajikistan, South Africa, di ba kayo nagduda doon?”
Buenaventura declined to make conclusions and apologized to the court. “I have no personal knowledge on the current status of the countries mentioned or their financial or money laundering standing in the international community,” he said.
Requirement
He also said during direct examination by private prosecutor Mae Divinagracia that banks are required by law – not just encouraged – to report all suspicious transactions to AMLC.
“The law used the word ‘required.’ So they’re required to report suspicious transactions. The law did not mention any threshold. The law says regardless of the amount,” Buenaventura said.
“A suspicious transaction could be higher than the threshold or it could be lower than the threshold, as long as the presence of suspicious circumstances are there,” he said.
“Essentially, suspicion is one based on the knowledge of the covered person or reporting entity, based on the profile of the client and taking account all other circumstances to determine whether or not there is a suspicious circumstance,” Buenaventura said.
“The threshold, at least insofar as the law requires, is suspicion or suspicious circumstances,” he added.
But defense counsel Mark Vinluan insisted that such bank records are covered by the confidentiality rule.
“Covered institutions are required to report suspicious transactions. They are not just encouraged to report suspicious transactions,” Divinagracia said in response. — Delon Porcalla, Daphne Galvez
