Alleged PNP ‘bribe conduit’ was actually the whistle-blower

The Filipino named in a Quebec court case as “conduit” of bribes to the Philippine National Police is actually the one who tipped off Canadian authorities, sworn statements show.

Whistle-blower Rizalino Espino of Concept Dynamics Enterprises is also a victim of the “bribery, corruption, money laundering” that he exposed. Montreal-based Ultra Electronics Forensic Technology Inc. dumped him as sales rep in February 2018 with unpaid commissions.

From 2006 to 2016, two UEFTI execs persistently, illegally instructed Espino to bribe officers of the PNP and Department of the Interior and Local Government. He refused, since then-interior secretary Ronaldo Puno and brother Rodolfo Puno, head of the Philippine Road Board, endorsed UEFTI’s breakthrough ballistics information technology.

On April 3, 2018 Espino e-mailed new UEFTI president Brian Sinnot about the scam. Seeing no action, he reported the crime in August 2018 to the Canadian embassy’s Trade Commission officer, who in turn alerted the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.

 The following month RCMP agents came to Manila and took the depositions of Espino and partner, multi-awarded retired police general Efren Q. Fernandez. They turned over their smartphones so the agents can verify their depositions from text messages, e-mails and call logs.

In his 2018 e-mail and deposition, Espino swore that sales VP Philip Timothy Heaney and Asia-Pacific sales director Paul Wrensted insisted that he “process” (bribe) officials. He refused, as he was selling a “world standard” ballistics info system that Interpol had adopted and PNP thus needed in solving gun crimes. Thrice he told them to ignore certain “Kits” and “Doc” who were name-dropping the Punos.

To his “shock” on May 31, 2023, Espino was named bribery “mastermind” in a report by The Canadian Press. The news agency quoted an agreed statement of facts (ASF) between Canadian prosecutors and UEFTI lawyers in a remediation case.

The Quebec court fined UEFTI $10 million but deferred its prosecution under a new law that encourages reporting corporate misdeeds. Four former UEFTI execs are to be tried in separate criminal raps: founder Robert Walsh, ex-president Re?e Bélanger, director Michael McLean and Heaney.

Espino wrote The Canadian Press last Monday to straighten out the ASF’s “inaccuracies, selective disclosures, false and even defamatory” contents. For one, likely to avoid damage suits by Espino, it claimed that present UEFTI president Alvaro Venegas had received “an e-mail from a former sales rep” and promptly reported to authorities. Sinnot was president when Espino exposed the crimes in 2018.

Espino disputed two points in the ASF. One, that the Puno brothers allegedly took bribes. Two, that there was no victim, when he was in fact removed as sales rep, with commissions withheld, after UEFTI hired another Filipino company to do the bribing.

In his 2018 e-mail to Sinnot, Espino said he had bagged without bribery Phases 1 and 2 of UEFTI’s contract with the PNP, 2006-2015. At that time the Canadian firm was called Forensic Technology Inc. and had yet to be bought by Britain’s Ultra Electronics.

Phase 3 in 2016 would have capped for UEFTI a total of $17 million. Heaney and Wrensted were rushing to close the sale as promised to the new principals and repeated their orders to bribe. Still Espino refused. General Fernandez had by then left the partnership, when appointed by the Defense Department as assistant secretary for acquisitions and logistics because of his sterling reputation.

Espino ignored the foot-dragging by extortionate PNP officers, as he knew from experience that they would renew UEFTI’s superior ballistics system. Impatient for results, Heaney and Wrensted brought in a longtime PNP supplier whom McLean appointed to replace Espino.

UEFTI’s remediation or deferred prosecution is only the second such agreement with prosecutors under the new Canada law. Through The Canadian Press, Espino said he wishes “to call the attention of concerned parties to the apparent deficiency of the rules governing remediation agreements, particularly regarding court oversight and protection of victim’s rights.”

He said: “There is no check and balance against a possible error, or worse, connivance between the Prosecution and the Accused Company that would lead to a denial of a victim’s right to be recognized and compensated. This being just the second remediation agreement to be approved, there is still much to learn.

“Although I am not a citizen of Canada, it does not preclude me from aspiring for a better system that will benefit your society and the world. I hope this incident will somehow provide a spark that will lead to changes that will refine the Remediation mechanism. I am willing to cooperate with the relevant authorities to achieve this end.”

*      *      *

Follow me on Facebook: https://tinyurl.com/Jarius-Bondoc