VALENCIA. The exconsejeros of Banco de Valencia they are a little closer to sit on the bench of the accused to be tried by the bankruptcy of the financial institution. The judge of the National Audience Santiago Pedraz has dismissed the resources of reform presented by the exconsejeros of Banco de Valencia against the indictment for the offence of false accounting. In practice, the decision is to leave you already at the gates of an oral hearing which could be held at the end of this year or, more probably, in 2021, ten years after the intervention, rescue and subsequent sale of the bank to CaixaBank.
In an order dated June 12, Pedraz agree then continue to move forward with the processing of the ex-president of the entity, José Luis Olivas, and thirteen other members of the council, after more than six years of instruction in order to determine his responsibility in the fateful end of the entity. They are accused of the alleged misrepresentation of the accounts of 2009 and 2010, the years prior to its intervention by the Bank of Spain.
In the same car, against which it may yet appeal to those processed that are not yet presented at the time of appeal in reform, the magistrate also dismissed the “reproach” of the appellants to the exclusion of the absorbing company as a responsible civil subsidiary to the shareholders of Banco de Valencia.
The judge thinks this is a question “already settled along the prior instruction” and stresses that the Catalan entity exercises the particular charge from which it is called on the process in January 2014 in the capacity of “injured or aggrieved by the offence”.
In this regard, and “without getting into assessments with other procedures”, the judge Pedraz argues that to transform its position as a accusation of active to passive “it would be true helplessness, as he would have been banned during all this time the opportunity to contribute elements for his defense, to the contrary of what he has done, bring them to sustain indictment.”
The pronouncement comes up from the application of some small shareholders to CaixaBank, as the universal successor of Banco de Valencia, to assume the damages that may derive from civil and criminal liability. Both the anti-Corruption Office as the judge instructor has been ruled out up to now and the fact that Pedraz reiterate this exclusion in this last auto saved permanently to the Catalan entity from having to take care of any repair of the damage suffered by the shareholders of Banco de Valencia, which, according to legal sources could be between 300 and 400 million euros.
In the indictment to the council, the judge already dismissed call as a responsible civil subsidiary to the entity that was Banco de Valencia for one euro after being intervened and rescued by the FROB with a shot of 5,500 million of public money. However, assuming the criterion expressed by the anti-Corruption Office, the judge himself considered responsible civilians Bankiathe Bancaja Foundation and Bank Financial and Savings (BFA).
As published this paper, the argument put forward by the Prosecution to determine who responds and who not to repair the economic damage derived from the possible criminal liability has baffled both to those small shareholders as to the banks which they themselves are accused of possible civil liability.
In fact, both BFA as Bankia draw attention to that fact in their respective resources, which in a moment raised against the indictment. These resources are also dismissed with the self that Santiago Pedraz issued the 12th of June.
He accuses the council of false accounting
In addition, José Luis Olivas, the accused is also contained in the exconsejero delegate, Domingo Parra; the two former vice presidents of the bank; and the partner, auditor at Deloitte Miguel Monferrer.
The fiscal anti-corruption Carmen Theanthe same of the case Bankia, he urged the processing of the board of directors of Banco de Valencia to suppress the deterioration of the real entity in the formulation of the accounts of 2009 and 2010, subject to investigation in the main part of the set of complaints that are filed after the bankruptcy and subsequent rescue of the entity valencia.
Thean was based, in turn, in the warnings that the Bank of Spain carried out by Banco de Valencia on the weaknesses identified in 2009. The General Intervention (IGAE) warned of these deficiencies in a report on the annual accounts and consolidated accounts, 2009 the board of directors approved the January 29, 2010 and that the auditor validated in a report issued on 1 February of that year.
Pedraz extended in November of 2013 the allocation of the thirteen former members of the Board of Directors of the Bank of Valencia and the partner of the audit firm Deloitte for these alleged irregularities in the entity to attribute to them a crime of false accounting in the formulation of the accounts for 2010.
The origin of the research is the lawsuit filed by the association of small shareholders Apabankval against the directors of the bank of valencia by false accounting and unfair administration to approve in February 2011, the individual and consolidated accounts of the entity for 2010 knowing that do not reflect the faithful image of heritage, financial position and results of the bank.