The Court of Auditors considers that “the capital deficit calculation statement has not been presented” of Novo Banco, that “the Resolution Fund has a duty to demand”, according to the bank’s audit released today.

There was neither a statement of the calculation of Novo Banco’s capital deficit (amount to be financed) nor evidence of its full verification, which the Resolution Fund has a duty to demand under the Contingent Capitalization Agreement “, it can be read in one of the conclusions of the document.

In another of the conclusions, the report states that “Novo Banco’s obligation to report the information on the execution of the Contingent Capitalization Agreement has not been properly fulfilled, due to the lack of formalization of the agreement on the form and substance of the support for that information and the delay in the preparation of this support by Novo Banco (face contractual term of thirty days), claiming to depend on audited accounts “.

For the Court of Auditors, despite the public financing of Novo Banco having contributed “to the stability of the financial system, mainly because the bank’s liquidation has been avoided and systemic risk has been reduced”, “its impact on the sustainability of finances has not been minimized. nor reduced moral hazard “.

Novo Banco has already consumed 2,976 million euros of public money, an amount “which adds” to the 4,900 million of initial capitalization, “with the possibility of spending an additional 914 million euros” under the Contingent Capitalization Agreement and “the amount required the viability of Novo Banco, under the terms of the commitment made to the European Commission (up to 1.6 billion euros) “.

The entity chaired by José Tavares also states that “there was a lack of transparency in the communication of the impact of the Banco Espírito Santo resolution and the sale of Novo Banco on the sustainability of public finances”.

The focus of imputing the losses recorded at Banco Espírito Santo and Novo Banco should not be diverted from those responsible (by action or inaction) to burden taxpayers or bank customers (as a rule also taxpayers “, the Court of Auditors understands.

.

Disclaimer: If you need to update/edit/remove this news or article then please contact our support team Learn more