BY THIS TIME it should be clear to senators and congressmen that they erred in 2013 when they succumbed to a lobby to exempt casinos from the coverage of the Anti-Money Laundering Act that was then opened up precisely for them to amend and improve.

The dilemma then faced by key Congress players was whether to err or to earn from the lobby for casinos’ exemption. As the ongoing Senate hearing on the e-hijacking of $81 million (P3.7 billion) from the Bangladesh central bank shows, the lawmakers erred and the well-funded lobby won.

The question facing lawmakers anew is: After the drama of the Senate hearings on the cyber heist, will the Congress finally plug the holes that it left gaping after the earlier legislative attempt to “improve” the Anti-Money Laundering Act of 2001?

Senators walked into darkened corridors as they continued last Tuesday to trace the $81 million stolen in February from the Bangladesh central bank’s account with the Federal Reserve Bank of New York and funneled through a big Makati bank for laundering in local casinos.

Where did the $81 million go and how much of it can still be returned to Bangladesh? Who are the local connections of the hackers, said to be Chinese, who must have known long ago the vulnerability of local laws and the banking system?

If we were to believe Kim Wong, a Chinese casino junket operator and one of the central characters mentioned in the scandal, the money (equivalent to P3.7 billion at $1=P46), was farmed out this way:

• P1.365 billion went to Solaire Resort and Casino in Parañaque.

• P1 billion went to Midas Hotel and Casino in Pasay City.

• P100 million was delivered personally by Rizal Commercial Banking Corp. Jupiter branch manager Maia Santos-Deguito and Philrem Service Corp. (a remittance agency) treasurer Michael Bautista.

• P300 million and P230 million ($5 million) was fetched by Wong from the Bautista residence.

• Wong also claimed that some P782 million ($17 million) is still with Philrem.

Can the entire P3.7 billion still be recovered? So far, Wong has returned P213 million ($4.63 million) and another P38 million, a week after, for a total of P251 million from him.

This leaves a balance of roughly P3.4 billion, still a huge amount to be recovered. There were scattered promises to return part of the loot, but people are still awaiting the next tranche(s).

■ Senate probe raises more questions

THE SENATE hearing two days ago on the cyber heist that is threatening to sully the Philippine banking system and a few big names seems to have raised more questions than answers much like the earlier inquiries.

For instance, what could have been the motive of dismissed RCBC branch manager Maia Deguito for using Philrem in converting and remitting the dollars deposited in her branch to persons with fictitious accounts?

Why did Deguito try to hastily close the five questionable accounts, which were the beneficiaries of dollar deposits coming from a dubious source, upon learning of a freeze order?

If the claim of William Go, another person included in the inquiry, is true that the RCBC Jupiter branch account being attributed to him was indeed not his, how come Deguito allegedly tried to persuade him to close the account in exchange for P10 million and later P20 million?

Go said he refused the offer, because he did not have an account with the Jupiter branch in the first place. He stressed that the account was fictitious and the signatures being attributed to him were forgeries.

But Deguito, sometimes swearing on her children’s heads, maintained the alleged account belonged to Go and that she did not get a centavo from the transactions.

Granting for the sake of argument the questionable account is indeed fictitious as claimed by Go and allegedly opened by Deguito without his consent or knowledge (to serve as a parking account for money laundering), then she could close by herself the account as easily as it was opened, without involving Go.

Under such a situation, an alleged offer of a large sum for Go to close the account becomes unnecessary.

On the other hand, if Go really owned the account and later disowned it to avoid getting involved in the scandal, could he have probably asked another person to open it under his name but made sure the signature is not his so he could disown it as a forgery?

■ How high does the RCBC buck go?

WE CAN assume that the major players in the money laundering caper have figured out their respective excuses and ways to get out of a sticky situation if one arises.

Deguito pointed to RCBC president-on-leave Lorenzo Tan having instructed her to accommodate his “friends,” particularly Kim Wong to whom part of the laundered money was sent. Tan has denied this.

The line does not jibe with Deguito’s earlier testimony that the RCBC president had never instructed her to open any account at RCBC and that she merely “assumed” that he had known about the transaction.

Deguito has also admitted, under oath, that she accommodated written and spoken requests for the transfers of huge sums from “valued clients” or “friends” who are not the owners of the accounts involved in the transfers.

In previous hearings, Deguito said she did not make a thorough verification of the account holders where the laundered money was wired as, she said, she trusted Wong’s referral. The bank said this was a violation of internal policy and practice.