The Supreme Court has upheld the acquittal of the 34 defendants in the trial for the IPO of Bankia, including the former president of the entity and former director general of the IMF Rodrigo Rat, for crimes of fraud and false accounting.

The Supreme dismissed both appeals filed against the decision that the National Court adopted in September 2020, which considered that the IPO of the banking entity had the approval of all supervisors –Bank of Spain, National Securities Market Commission, FROB and European Banking Authority-.

Among those acquitted, in addition to Rato, are the former executive director of BankiaJose Manuel Fernandez Norniella; the former vice president of the organization Joseph Louis Olives, and his successor, Francisco Verdu; former interior minister Angel Acebes; Bankia’s comptroller, Sergio Duraand Deloitte’s audit partner, Francis Celma.

[Anticorrupción acusa a Rato de defraudar 8,5 millones a Hacienda y le pide 80 años de cárcel]

Support the management of Rodrigo Rato

The High Court guarantees that the entire process prior to the move to the trading floor on July 20, 2011 was perfectly known, supervised and authorized by the Bank of Spain, and had the consent of the Ministry of Economy, a version defended by Rodrigo Rato and other defendants.

In this way, it endorses the decision of the National High Court that supports the management of Rodrigo Rato, that he was at the head of the entity since the integration process, an operation that “was due to decisions adopted by the economic authorities, without any initiative on the part of the accused.”

In a 180-page sentence, the Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court ends a judicial case that has lasted for a decade. The two appeals now dismissed were formulated by the private accusations that represented AEMEC (Spanish Association of Minority Shareholders of Listed Companies) and by Bochner Spain.

[La Audiencia Nacional concede la libertad condicional a Rodrigo Rato]

The ruling of the National High Court ensured that there was not a single piece of information that could lead to harboring even the mere well-founded belief that the accused did abandonment of their duties. Said sentence, explains the Supreme Court, “does not identify, in relation to any of the defendants, false or fraudulent conduct in the process of going public”, although it admits that “other assessments are possible, such as the one that the experts came to support proposed by the accusations”.

IPO was viable

It also argues that at the time of its IPO Bankia was viable and that the infeasibility that was intended to be demonstrated is based mainly on the four post in which the opinion of the Inspector of the Bank of Spain, Mr. José Antonio Casaus Lara, sent on April 8 and 14 and May 10 and 16, 2011, to other members of the Bank of Spain Inspection Service, including his superiors , opinions of Casaus that did not have never reflected in any official document.

In addition, the ruling of the National High Court indicates that the IPO brochure contained a “wide and accurate” information financial and non-financial, and highlighted that both the decision to go public and the determination to do so with the dual bank structure were resolutions “entirely contemplated by the Bank of Spain”, which through its Inspection Service “supervised and approved All the steps”.

In the sentence it is recalled that the Prosecutor, in his provisional conclusions, stated that the economic and financial information that Bankia provided to the market on the occasion of the IPO “cannot be materially qualified as false to the extent that they did not violate the regulations then in force and complied with the requirements of the regulator, which came to expressly authorize some accounting decisions” although “”or contributed to the faithful image of the entity appearing appropriately”.

Regarding the non-financial information signed in the prospectus, the ruling of the National High Court indicates that “up to 36 investment risks are described in Bankia shares that were highlighted in the first point of the summary of its content” It adds that “the exhaustive and clear description of the risks also contains a warning that anyone would understand”.

Sentence supports the good work of the brochure and referring to Bankia, states that “it seems difficult to conceive that any banking entity, after having the approval of the Bank of Spain, the CNMV, the FROB and the EBA on the suitability of its IPO and the adequacy of the Prospectus informative to reality, be suspicious of all these opinions and proclaim the need for take precautions against advertising companies that, as in the case of Bankia, highlight the power of the entity, referencing the high number of employees, ATM offices, and its high number of total assets, data that were true”.

Source: Elespanol

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

J. A. Allen

Author, blogger, freelance writer. Hater of spiders. Drinker of wine. Mother of hellions.

Leave a Reply