, corruption, and illegal drug cases. let me cite a few examples : just recently, the anti - money laundering council ( amlc ) filed a petition for civil forfeiture on assets, including a real estate property in cebu, relative to illegal drugs. as of 2020, real estate with an estimated value of almost p900 million accounted for 22 percent of the total assets subject of civil forfeiture proceedings in the philippines. the amlc has been able to confiscate almost p30 million worth of real estate that was “ used as a means to hide the proceeds of crime and / or as an instrumentality of crime, including terrorism financing. ” several real estate assets, which are subject of existing freeze orders, have also been found to be related to terrorism financing. purchasing real property integrates illicit funds into the legal economy. when used for business activities, the purchased real property, such as a hotel or restaurant, may also provide what appears to be a legitimate source of income. now that real estate brokers are covered under the ambit of the anti - money laundering act, as amended, real estate brokers are obliged to put into place measures to prevent and detect money laundering and its predicate crimes, terrorism, and terrorism financing. these aml / ctf requirements are not meant to burden real estate brokers but designed to add more credibility, preserve the integrity of the real estate sector, and prevent it from being used as a channel or a repository of criminal proceeds. the actions required of real estate brokers include : 1. conduct of customer due diligence ( cdd ) / know - your - customer ( kyc ) procedures on all clients ; 2. filing of covered transaction reports on single cash transactions in excess of p7. 5 million or its equivalent in any currency ; and filing of suspicious transaction reports, which are transactions, regardless of the amounts involved, where any of the suspicious circumstances listed in the amla, as amended, exists ; and 3. recordkeeping of all cdd / kyc and transaction records for at least five ( 5 ) years. first, it must be noted that real estate brokers are already performing two ( 2 ) of these three requirements, that is, cdd / kyc procedures and recordkeeping. since the purchase of real property from a real estate broker or developer is an official and 4 / 6 bis central bankers'speeches contractual undertaking, stating personal information as well as the sources of funds should not be

very well aware that this edifice has a decisive weakness : the risk of accumulating excessive debt is greater in such a monetary union than in countries that have their own currencies. one reason is that the member states of a monetary union of this design are not borrowing in their own currency. they therefore cannot meet their payment obligations by simply printing money – a solution which, for stability - oriented central bankers, is generally a non - starter anyway. another is that there are greater incentives to borrow in a monetary union because any consequences of relying increasingly on capital market funding can be passed on to the other member states. and that was why the member states pledged to maintain sound public finances, introduced upper limits for annual budget deficits and public debt levels, and agreed to a “ no bail - out clause ” that would prevent one member state from assuming liability for the debts of another. they also prohibited central banks from printing money to help cash - strapped euro - area governments this was designed to ensure that member states are liable for their own debts and cannot pass them on to other members of the community. at the end of the day, people will behave in a responsible manner only if they take responsibility for their own actions. or, to put it slightly more bluntly : each member state must “ pay its own way ". all this is ultimately intended to protect the single monetary policy from coming under pressure to 2 / 6 bis central bankers'speeches inflate away excessive levels of government debt through monetisation. the founding fathers of the monetary union were well aware that there would be a loud cry for monetary policy action if the soundness of public finances should be at risk at any time. the debt crisis in the euro area showed us that the maastricht framework was unable to prevent sovereign debt crises and had also failed to effectively counteract other unsound economic developments such as a severe loss of international competitiveness and excessive current account deficits. during the crisis, as you are well aware, we then set up the much - publicised european rescue packages during the crisis and took other measures – including through the eurosystem – in order to prevent the crisis from escalating. but at the same time, these measures undermined the principle of individual national responsibility. although the “ no bail - out ” rule still applies, in reality, elements of communitised liability have been gaining ground. this upset the balance between actions and accountability because, naturally, the member states were