Homemade

Tanvir Hassan Zoha, 34, is a Bangladeshi IT expert who was supposed to be helping his government investigate the embarrassing theft of $81 million from the country’s central bank. He has disappeared.

Shortly before his disappearance, Zoha appeared on TV, blaming Bangladeshi authorities for their apathy over security. He specifically blamed the database administrator of the Bangladesh Bank, saying this official cannot avoid responsibility for the supposed hacking that happened. A few days after, he was picked up from the streets by plainclothes men.

Officials for the Bangladesh Bank later denied Zoha was involved in any capacity in the investigation of the cyber heist.

If the money laundering investigation on our end is appearing more confused, the investigation on the Bangladeshi side is turning bizarre. This incredible scandal is, after all, homemade.

Remember, this fascinating story of theft by hacking began in Dhaka. Shortly after the story broke the $81 million was stolen from the Bangaldesh Bank, the country’s finance minister A.M.A. Muthi admitted in an interview that officials of the bank were “100 percent involved” in the heist.

While the stolen money may have passed through three US correspondent banks, they were on the basis of instructions from Bangladesh Bank. The US banks required handprints and other biometric information from officials of the Bangladesh Bank to activate transactions. Clearly, the hackers could not have carried out this heist without the involvement of local bank officials.

Last week, Alain Raes, chief executive for SWIFT Asia Pacific expressed “very strong certainty” their system were never compromised in relation to this spectacular bank heist. SWIFT (for Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication) is a cooperative of about 4,000 financial institutions around the world. It mediates financial transactions between banks.

If SWIFT is clean, then the security failure must have happened at the Bangladesh Bank.

The Bangladesh Bank’s governor and his two deputies immediately resigned after the scandal broke. However, the investigation into who exactly among the bank’s personnel were involved in the plot appears to have stalled.

Any investigation into this heist should begin with the conspiracy within Bangladesh. The aspect of money laundering happens only after the money was stolen. There is a distinct possibility some of the stolen money has since returned to Bangladesh, to those involved in the heist.

To be sure, this scandal has shaken the government of Prime Minister Sheik Hasina. There are political repercussions the ruling elite there needs to manage. This could be why Dhaka is so intent on pressuring Philippine authorities to investigate the laundering trail and recover as much of the cash as possible – and making a show of bringing back the cash.

While we do have the responsibility to cooperate with the international investigation already in progress and return whatever funds are recovered, the shortcomings on the part of the Bangladesh government ought not to be downplayed. They have the first responsibility to protect their $27 billion in foreign currency reserves.

To begin with, the Bangladesh Bank, apparently unsure of the scale of the heist, sent a mere request to Philippine authorities to monitor the movement of “doubtful” funds from their accounts. That was not a strong enough signal for our authorities to act with urgency and shut down the transactions early enough.

Bangladeshi officials bear much of the responsibility. They should match their insistence at recovering their money with concrete corrective action on their obvious failings.

There has been institutional failure at both ends, from the bank so easily robbed by hackers to the casinos that too easily laundered the stolen money.

Pro-Life

Buhay party-list representative Lito Atienza joined the chorus condemning Rodrigo Duterte’s apparent fascination with summary executions as a quick-fix to criminality.

Atienza voiced support for Jejomar Binay’s earlier condemnation of Duterte’s inclination towards violent responses to crime as well as his apparent low regard for women’s rights. Like Duterte in Davao, Atienza and Binay served several terms as mayor of Manila and Makati respectively.

The former Manila mayor has consistently taken a pro-life stance throughout his political career. He is responsible for establishing one of the country’s largest women’s organizations, the Kababaihan ng Maynila. For this reason, he likewise expressed grave concern over Duterte’s apparent low regard for the rights of women.

In a recent statement, Atienza faulted Duterte for passing off showmanship and entertainment as solutions to the serious problems of containing criminality. He reminds the Davao mayor about all the studies in criminology that show crime is never solved by way of extrajudicial killings or vigilantism.

When he was mayor of Manila, Atienza issued strict orders for the police of closely observe the standards of due process. Instead of taking shortcuts, he ordered the police to be more diligent in doing their work. Extrajudicial killings simply make criminals of the police and compound the problem.

Most of the victims of summary executions (or “salvaging”) are poor and defenseless. This makes the practice doubly immoral. It violates the right to life and adds to the oppression of the poor.

Atienza called on Filipino voters “to judge the candidates according to their values, religious beliefs and track record in curbing criminality” and “to be wary of false promises not in consonance with our religious and traditional Filipino values.”

“Only hardworking and hands-on executives will help our country recover from the mess we are in,” he continued.

Atienza is a staunch supporter of the presidential bid of Jejomar Binay. He sees urgency in his insistence on a values-based vote given the results of recent voter preference surveys that put Duterte at the lead.