RP's Bank Secrecy Law is Protecting Plunderers and Money-Launderers (Angay ba ni Tangtangon?)

[<SMILE>]

---

With the onset of SALN's I think it's applicable with our dear government officials and of course with their links as well.

[bleedingboi]

nobody has business in peeking at anybodys account just to check if they have not been doing something out of ordinary...

what ever happen to the rights will end when the right of others start.... skeleton or not its my right.... ang problema diri sa atoa... allegations pa gani kung maka request wagas...

Let me educate you both...

Nothing's changing here, I repeat, nothing will change. For public officials charged with Plunder, the BIR, DOJ, Obusdman or any other third party cannot access any bank details without documents or requests from the higher court. So I'm not sure why ordinary citizens should be bothered or worried about this.

We only need a revision of the FCDA Act 6426 or add another criteria for exemption. Currently, there are only 2 allowable reasons to investigate a bank account are; 1. Plunder 2. If the Account owner is willing to disclose.

[emow]

Let me educate you both...

Nothing's changing here, I repeat, nothing will change. For public officials charged with Plunder, the BIR, DOJ, Obusdman or any other third party cannot access any bank details without documents or requests from the higher court. So I'm not sure why ordinary citizens should be bothered or worried about this.

We only need a revision of the FCDA Act 6426 or add another criteria for exemption. Currently, there are only 2 allowable reasons to investigate a bank account are; 1. Plunder 2. If the Account owner is willing to disclose.

i thought you are against both the 1955 bank secrecy law and the fcda by marcos and also bank secrecy as a banking principle like that of the Swiss.
my post was a defense on bank secrecy as a principle, a necessary protection on every citizens property deposited in the banks.

[JuanFromCDO]

The bank secrecy law has been a burden for the the persecution of corrupt officials. This law needs to be amended because it just makes our judicial system a lame duck. Well there are so many laws in the Philippines that needs to be amended but lawmakers and politician are not making much effort for the people.

[yhokz101]

For public officials charged with corruptiona and plunder, esp with plunder. It should be mandatory for them to have transparency of their bank account as public servants. To be addressed to these people only, not necessarily to all citizens.

[bleedingboi]

i thought you are against both the 1955 bank secrecy law and the fcda by marcos and also bank secrecy as a banking principle like that of the Swiss.
my post was a defense on bank secrecy as a principle, a necessary protection on every citizens property deposited in the banks.

It's a tight banking secrecy that concerns me my friend. And the stupid "privacy" and "personal rights" rule that protects it. Public officials and their associates should no longer get these privileges, since they are already serving the "PUBLIC". Hence the name.

[emow]

It's a tight banking secrecy that concerns me my friend. And the stupid "privacy" and "personal rights" rule that protects it. Public officials and their associates should no longer get these privileges, since they are already serving the "PUBLIC". Hence the name.

the frustration is very understandable, but expediency should never be a basis to curtail property rights. my defense is for the private citizens, but for public officials, their accounts should be scrutinized once they will be charged with an appropriate case. but not before... bank secrecy of switzerland was able to help many europeans prosecuted by the nazis stash away their savings, and it is in this regard that i hold bank secrecy as a defense to our property. btw, rights are not rules.

[bleedingboi]

the frustration is very understandable, but expediency should never be a basis to curtail property rights. my defense is for the private citizens, but for public officials, their accounts should be scrutinized once they will be charged with an appropriate case.

Well, private citizens' rights being trespassed is no longer an issue. If it is, then we would be hearing FOX, CNN, and NBC blabbering about it from thousands of US citizens filing suits against the IRS. with this act passed by the US congress, requires legal documentation of your money source, issued by the IRS if any deposit over $10,000 is made. And it's working fine for other Europeans countries and First world Asian countries like Japan and Korea.

I'm not saying we need to follow these countries (although many will agree when we do), I'm just pointing out to lax the system a bit. Excluding public servants and their associates.

btw, rights are not rules.

It will be a rule once it is written in that thousand page sheet of paper we call the "Constitution".

[emow]

Well, private citizens' rights being trespassed is no longer an issue. If it is, then we would be hearing FOX, CNN, and NBC blabbering about it from thousands of US citizens filing suits against the IRS. with this act passed by the US congress, requires legal documentation of your money source, issued by the IRS if any deposit over $10,000 is made. And it's working fine for other Europeans countries and First world Asian countries like Japan and Korea.

I'm not saying we need to follow these countries (although many will agree when we do), I'm just pointing out to lax the system a bit. Excluding public servants and their associates.



It will be a rule once it is written in that thousand page sheet of paper we call the "Constitution".

off topic :constitutions dont create rights, how could it protect something that doesnt exist before hand.

on topic, somewhat: if im not mistaken, the 10k limit was imposed as a way to curb criminal money and terrorist money from being easily transferred in the financial system. im afraid this is not enough and somewhere down the road, the limits will be expanded even further... and of course rights will be violated in the name of practicality and expediency for the same cause. it should be a surprise why mainstream media have always been silent to matters of principle when what they usually discuss are mere technicalities often steered to what is politically correct. if we depend on the new to form a principled opinion, it would be a rich source of futility.

just to clarify your stance, you are not agreeable to government randomly peeking at your account without being charged of a particular crime?

[Romeojin]

I dont see a need for amendments of the 2 bank secrecy law. Btw Republic Act No. 1405 covers all bank deposits in the Philippines and no distinction was made between domestic and foreign deposits while Republic Act No. 6426 is for foreign currency deposit only. These secrecy encourages depositors hence there's a need for it.

Republic Act No. 1405 cited 4 exemptions already should suffice the concern of the general public.
1. in cases of impeachment
2. upon order of a competent court in the case of bribery or dereliction of duty of public officials
3. when the money deposited or invested is the subject matter of the litigation
4. in cases of violation of the Anti-Money Laundering Act (AMLA), the Anti-Money Laundering Council (AMLC) may inquire into a bank account upon order of any competent court.

Sadly there are groups who are just fishing for evidences and trial by publicity they should file the case right away and take that exemptions.... viola. No need to irritate the other depositors.