Manuel García Castellón, judge of the National Court who investigated the court’s orders BBVA for retired commissioner José Manuel Villarejo, He was questioned as a witness this Monday the current president of the organization, Carlos Torres stayed away from any decisions regarding this issue until mid-2018, when the scandal broke out. He attended the meetings where the issue was discussed at that time and was recorded. in minutes.
Owner Central Instruction Court No. 6 He accepted the request to call up Torres, suggested by . Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office and for this separate part of the Villarejo case he thought “it is important to know whether this is particularly relevant”. institutional control mechanisms As published by Europa Press, the organization with the aim of determining the existence of an effective regulatory compliance culture, with the aim of clarifying the criminal liability of the bank.
The declaration, legal sources told this newspaper, moody And at some moments it even happened uncomfortable. According to bank sources, Torres, as a witness, “gave testimony in a completely normal manner, answering questions from the prosecution and other parties.”
In his entire statement, towers He denied meeting with the commissioner or his relationship with the organization before the scandal broke in 2018. He explained how he came to BBVA in 2008, going so far as to confirm that the incident occurred on his first day of work. “It was the day Lehman Brothers went bankrupt”. Regarding his relationship with the president during the period of the analyzed recruitments, Francisco González stated that they only met “at a wedding” in those years.
In this separate episode 9 of the ‘Tandem’ macro case, both BBVA and its former president Francisco González are charged. They are being investigatedServices agreed by the bank to CENYT –The Villarejo company – for different projects between at least 2004 and 2017, the organization will have paid more than 10 million euros to the commissioner.
Independent external researchers
Torres stated before the judge that the case was handled by the internal audit department when it came out, but since January 2019 everything has been in the hands of external independent investigators, the offices of Garrigues and Uría, and the consulting firm PwC, which is responsible. to actualize ‘Forensics’ in performance “I have nothing to do with this incident: I neither participated nor gave any instructions, and a forensic methodology was carried out by external parties, as the bank explains on its website,” he assured. Official bank sources.
Along the way, he claimed that it was actually these investigators who made the decision and not anyone from the bank. leave your name out Although he was initially on the list of keywords – ‘hiders’ – he was removed from the list of people to be investigated internally. So, when the matter fell into outside hands in January 2019, the institution no longer made the decision, he said, and it was the researchers who made the decision, so the data from their devices did not contribute to the case in any way.
“We as the President and the Council as a whole have put forward a very clear mandate, we have fully cooperated with justice and this is visible in all the minutes and I think that is the case to the extent that the bank has contributed to everything that has come to light in the investigation,” he assured.
The judge had already explained that when Torres’ subpoena was agreed upon, it was not possible to take the deposition. María Jesús Arribas de Paz, the organization’s global legal director and the person who reports to the committee on what is being done at the organization because he “exercises his right not to declare his own free will.”
It was BBVA that objected to the judge’s decision to summon Arribas de Paz to court. He claimed that his statement could be taken Violating the obligation to keep professional secrecy and attorney-client privilege in addition to the agency’s right to defense. And according to BBVA, this subpoena was intended to compel Arribas de Paz to testify “as a witness regarding facts of which he has knowledge solely and exclusively through his work as a legal expert and the organization’s internal attorney.”