The money that wasn’t there

Sometimes, the most revealing thing about a bank account is not the money sitting in it. It is the money that passed through it.

That distinction could become crucial as the impeachment proceedings against Vice President Sara Duterte revisit bank transactions involving her and her father, former president Rodrigo Duterte. For years, political arguments surrounding the Duterte bank accounts have revolved around a seemingly simple question: how much money was actually there?

But the latest testimony points to a more important question: How much money moved through those accounts, where did it go and who ultimately benefited from it?

A Bank of the Philippine Islands (BPI) official testified that a peso time deposit account opened in January 2010 with P40.65 million. BPI Central Manila Division head Marwin Galvez testified before the Senate impeachment court that after 12 renewals or rollovers, the time deposit had grown to P41.72 million including interest when it was last renewed on Feb. 11, 2011. The proceeds were later credited to a settlement account at BPI Julia Vargas registered under the names of Rodrigo Duterte and Sara Duterte.

The P41.72 million was subsequently used to purchase a manager’s check. Records presented during the proceedings also showed another manager’s check transaction involving the identical amount months later.

Private prosecutor James Bryan Ibrahim Alih zeroed in on the significance of that movement. According to the prosecution’s theory, money placed in a manager’s check may no longer appear in the account’s year-end balance because the funds have already moved elsewhere.

That point reaches directly back to a controversy that has dogged the former president for a decade.

In 2016, then-senator Antonio Trillanes IV accused the former president of having millions of pesos in allegedly undeclared bank deposits and challenged him to disclose his transaction history. Duterte’s camp disputed the allegations. Duterte later acknowledged having accounts at BPI Julia Vargas but maintained that they contained only relatively small amounts.

The problem with that defense was always the question it did not answer. A small remaining balance says nothing by itself about how much money entered and left the account before that balance was taken.

The testimony now being heard gives that distinction concrete form: P41.72 million existed, moved through accounts bearing the Duterte names, and was converted into a manager’s check.

That does not prove Trillanes was correct about every allegation he made in 2016. Neither does the existence of the P41.72-million transaction prove that the money was illegally acquired, improperly concealed or required to be declared in a particular manner. Those are separate questions requiring separate evidence.

But the old argument over whether an account contained thousands or millions suddenly looks inadequate. The real issue is the financial trail.

And according to the prosecution, that trail may extend much further.

Prosecutors have signaled that forthcoming evidence will attempt to connect the P41 million with another P55 million, with the funds eventually converging at BPI Julia Vargas and being used to purchase several insurance policies.

That theory still has to be proven. But if prosecutors can establish the chain they are promising, the controversy changes substantially. It would no longer revolve around competing political claims about what a bank account supposedly contained. There would be a sequence of transactions to explain.

Where did the P40.65 million originally come from? Why was it placed in a time deposit under the names appearing in the bank records? Why was P41.72 million converted into a manager’s check? What happened to that check? Why does the identical amount appear again months later? And what, if anything, connects those funds to the additional P55 million and the insurance policies the prosecution says it will present?

Those are harder questions than how much was left in the account.

They also expose why the public should be wary whenever politicians answer questions about wealth with carefully chosen numbers plucked from their transaction history.

If the issue is whether substantial funds passed through accounts connected to public officials, then investigators should examine the entire chain: source, movement, ownership, destination and beneficial interest.

And this is where the current proceedings could become uncomfortable for the Dutertes.

A controversy once fought largely through press conferences, accusations and denials is now being revisited through bank documents and sworn testimony. Claims that were easy to dismiss as political demolition jobs can now be tested against records.

Perhaps the P41.72 million will eventually have an entirely legitimate and adequately documented explanation. If so, the evidence should establish it. Perhaps the prosecution will fail to connect it to the P55 million or to anything improper. That, too, should become apparent as the evidence unfolds.

But the questions cannot be answered by pointing to what remained in an account after the money had already gone somewhere else.

Ten years ago, Filipinos were asked to argue about how much money was supposedly sitting in Duterte bank accounts.

This time, there is a better question.

Where did the money go?

For comments, email at [email protected]