Practice question
Sixty days before a bank's closure, an account exceeding the applicable maximum coverage is divided among several unrelated nominees who have no beneficial ownership, specifically to multiply insurance claims. All other statutory elements are established. Is the absence of genuine ownership relevant?
- Yes; it is a central element of the defined deposit splitting.
- No; account labels conclusively establish genuine ownership.
- No; the timing alone makes every transfer lawful.
- No; deposit splitting concerns only stock dividends.
- No; PDIC cannot consider the source of deposits.
Legal references
- PDIC Charter, as amended through RA 11840, current consolidated text, deposit-splitting provision, https://www.pdic.gov.ph/files/PDIC%20Charter%202022.pdf
- PDIC Regulatory Issuance 2009-003, Parts III–V, https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/10/50378
- Linsangan v. PDIC, G.R. No. 228807, 11 February 2019, https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2019/feb2019/gr_228807_2019.html
- PDIC, maximum coverage increase effective 15 March 2025, https://www.pdic.gov.ph/files/ccd/PR-038-25%20New%20maximum%20deposit%20insurance%20coverage%20of%20P1%20Million%20takes%20effect%20on%20March%2015.pdf
Answer this question in flashcards to review your response and continue practicing.