Maharlika and ill-gotten wealth

Much of the public’s concerns against the much touted Maharlika Investment Fund (MIF), the country’s first ever sovereign wealth fund, have to do with billions in ill-gotten wealth supposedly stashed in secret bank accounts abroad. 

Opposition lawmakers raised the alarm bells early on. Maharlika may be used to bring back the ill-gotten wealth amassed during the administration of Ferdinand Marcos Sr., they say.

Ill-gotten wealth

Ah yes, ill-gotten wealth. In case people have forgotten, on July 15, 2003, the Supreme Court ruled that roughly P36 billion worth of assets of the Marcoses and their associates were considered ill-gotten wealth. This is according to the Human Rights Violations Victims’ Memorial Commission. 

However, it is also important to note that the Supreme Court has affirmed the Sandiganbayan’s dismissal of the complaint filed by the Republic of the Philippines for the recovery of supposed P41 billion in ill-gotten wealth of the Marcoses. It is one of many ill-gotten wealth cases.

In any case, assuming there’s still unrecovered ill-gotten wealth in some hidden vaults abroad, would Maharlika be used to launder this back to the country? 

I asked Maharlika Investment Corp. (MIC) president and CEO Joel Consing, a topnotch investment  banker and multi-awarded CFO, about this.

Consing, who has the Herculean task of making this wealth fund succeed, said there are measures in place to make sure this does not happen.

“Regarding the Fund being used to get back ‘ill-gotten wealth,’ the banks through which funds will be transmitted for investment into Maharlika would have gone through a KYC (know your customer) process, especially for materially significant amounts, on both sides of the remittance process,” he said.

MIC itself will conduct further due diligence, he added.

“That said, while banks conducting KYC on inward and outward remittances provide a layer of protection against money laundering, the MIC itself will implement further due diligence measures to verify the legitimacy of investment funds, particularly for substantial amounts. This additional layer of scrutiny would strengthen the presumption of regularity and build public trust in the Fund’s