Co-owner of defunct remittance center argues charges untimely filed

Haydn L. Villegas, a co-owner of a defunct remittance center who has been indicted for his role in the alleged conspiracy to defraud a Philippine bank, has argued that the charges were untimely filed and therefore warrant dismissal.

Villegas, through counsel G. Anthony Long, said the five-year limitations period applies to the case and that the last act in furtherance of the conspiracy occurred more than five years prior to filing of the indictment against him.

In Villegas’ motion to dismiss, Long asserted that pursuant to a statute, the 10-year limitations period does not apply to a conspiracy which affects a foreign bank.

The 10-year limitation period, the lawyer said, applies to a conspiracy which affects an agency or branch of a foreign bank.

“The 10-year statute of limitations is inapplicable to the conspiracy charge against Haydn (Villegas) as the indictment does not allege and can not be construed as alleging that the conspiracy affected an agency or branch of a foreign bank,” Long said.

Villegas is the co-owner of the defunct Philippine Express Remittance who allegedly defrauded the Philippine National Bank of about $109,855. He is charged with conspiracy to commit wire fraud. He has pleaded not guilty.

According to the indictment, the scheme to defraud Philippine National Bank began in November 2004 when Villegas and his wife, Ana Maria, started passing checks drawn on insufficient funds at PNB Express.

PNB Express was then a subsidiary of Philippine National Bank.

In the motion to dismiss, Long said according to the indictment, Philippine National Bank is a foreign bank located in the Philippines.

Long said the indictment then asserts that PNB Corp. is a subsidiary of PNB during business on Saipan as PNB Foreign Exchange.

He said PNB Exchange is in the business of collecting cash or check “remittances” from customers and then transmitting those collected funds to overseas recipients as directed by paying customers of Philippine Express Remittance.

Pursuant to the indictment, Long said, the purpose of the conspiracy was to defraud PNB.

Long said the indictment does not allege that PNB is “financial institution.”

He said a foreign bank is not a financial institution for purposes of a statute.

“For the 10-year limitations period to apply the conspiracy in this case had to affect an agency or branch of PNB,” Long said.

The lawyer said the conspiracy alleged in this case does not and did not affect an agency or branch of PNB.

Long noted that the last act alleged which concerns obtaining money from PNB by a fraudulent scheme occurred on or about May 13, 2005.

He said Villegas’ filing for bankruptcy in October 2005, therefore, occurred about five months after completion of the conspiracy’s main objective and therefore was not in furtherance of the conspiracy.

Long said the conspiracy ended upon the closing of Philippine Remittance Express on Oct. 11, 2005.