Sen. Bam Aquino questioned a Security Bank official Wednesday over how money could enter a bank account without the documents the bank normally requires to validate a transaction, during the 35th day of Vice President Sara Duterte’s impeachment trial.

Aquino pressed Leslie Cham, head of Security Bank’s Branch Banking Group, after Cham said the bank generally requires proof of payment or proof of remittance before accepting funds from transactions.

The questioning centered on Cale88 Foods Corp., a company linked to Duterte’s husband, lawyer Manases “Mans” Carpio. Records presented from the Anti-Money Laundering Council showed the company received more than 1.25 billion pesos in total transactions from 2022 to 2025.

Cham earlier confirmed to the Senate impeachment court that Cale88 has two checking accounts in pesos, which were closed in July 2026.

Aquino first asked Cham to explain the term “no economic justification,” which was cited by the AMLC in identifying certain transactions as suspicious.

Cham said banks normally ask for proof of the source of funds or income when a large transaction or deposit is made.

For transactions involving the sale of property, the bank may require documents such as a deed of sale or lease contract. For exporters or food manufacturers, Cham said the bank may require a financing contract or sales invoice.

Cham said these requirements are imposed by the bank and are part of industry practice.

“We don't transact without any documents,” Cham told the impeachment court.

Aquino then asked whether the absence of documents could explain why a transaction was flagged as having “no economic justification.”

Cham said he did not have enough details about the particular transaction to determine what happened and did not want to speculate.

Aquino further asked whether the bank would accept a remittance if the client failed to provide proof of payment or proof of remittance.

“No, we don't accept,” Cham said.

He added that the bank would usually return the money if the required documents were not provided.

Aquino then pointed to the apparent discrepancy between the bank’s stated procedures and testimony regarding the transactions involving money from Chinese companies.

“Coming from the witnesses the other day and with your testimony today, mukhang wala naman pong dokumento. Paano nangyari ho yun?” Aquino asked.

Cham again said he could not determine what happened in the specific case without reviewing the details, including whether the money was returned or retained.

Aquino also asked how the Security Bank handles transactions that raise doubts or are potentially suspicious.

Cham responded that front-line bank personnel refer questionable transactions to the bank’s compliance office, which determines whether there is an irregularity or possible violation and helps decide how the transaction should be handled.

Aquino then asked whether the transactions involving money from Chinese companies had been referred to the Security Bank’s compliance office.

“Yes. It was,” Cham confirmed.