Which inquiry would be considered a violation of the domestic bank deposit secrecy law?

Which inquiry would be considered a violation of the domestic bank deposit secrecy law?

• A. Periodic inquiry or special examination of bank deposit by BSP to ensure AML compliance.
• B. Inquiry of the bank deposit by the BIR Commissioner in relation to compromise of taxable liability or decedent's gross estate under the National Internal Revenue Code.
• C. Inquiry of the bank deposit by PDIC when there are findings of unsafe or unsound banking practices.
• D. Inquiry of the bank deposit by DOJ Secretary for the purpose of persecution of the members of the opposing political party

Answer: (D)

Bank deposits are confidential, and disclosures are allowed only for specific legitimate government purposes such as regulation, tax administration, or safeguarding the banking system. Standing behind this idea, the inquiry by the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas to ensure AML compliance is allowed, since AML oversight is a core regulatory function. The inquiry by the BIR Commissioner in relation to taxable liability or a decedent’s gross estate is allowed because it supports tax administration. The PDIC may inquire when there are findings of unsafe or unsound banking practices, which relates to bank supervision and stability. In contrast, using bank deposit information to persecute members of an opposing political party is not a legitimate objective under the bank deposit secrecy law and would violate the confidentiality obligation.

Bank deposits are confidential, and disclosures are allowed only for specific legitimate government purposes such as regulation, tax administration, or safeguarding the banking system. Standing behind this idea, the inquiry by the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas to ensure AML compliance is allowed, since AML oversight is a core regulatory function. The inquiry by the BIR Commissioner in relation to taxable liability or a decedent’s gross estate is allowed because it supports tax administration. The PDIC may inquire when there are findings of unsafe or unsound banking practices, which relates to bank supervision and stability. In contrast, using bank deposit information to persecute members of an opposing political party is not a legitimate objective under the bank deposit secrecy law and would violate the confidentiality obligation.