National Court Cierco denied his family’s claim for declaration paternal responsibility Bank of Spain For damages caused by the intervention of the Bank of MadridThey thought it was responsible for the bankruptcy of its parent company Banca Privada d’Andorra (BPA) in March 2015, amounting to 141 million euros.
In a decision, the judges of the Disputed Administrative Chamber They agree with Banco de Madrid’s majority shareholders that their demands have not expired Compared to those announced by Board of Directors of the Bank of Spain, It was rejected as untimely in May 2021. The court is of the opinion that the claim made by Ciercos on September 25, 2020 was made within the legal period.
The Ciercos are suing Spanish police officers in Andorra who allegedly pressured them to obtain financial information about Catalan citizens. In the last extension of the complaint, in 2019, the Institut de Drets Humans d’Andorra (IDHA) was directed against the former head of the Government. Mariano Rajoy and former ministers Cristóbal Montoro and Jorge Fernández Díaz, after listening to the former commissioner José Manuel Villarejo The main defendant in the investigation of police sewers in Spain testified as a witness about his alleged participation in this part of “Operation Catalonia”, but Only his superiors could close the bank. The Chamber rejected the claim and refused to include this criminal procedural information in the procedure.
In its intervention against the Bank of Spain’s subsidiary in Spain, the National Court rejects the financial liability of the Bank of Spain, because what happened in the case Unreasonable, arbitrary or disproportionate actions should be disregardedOn the contrary”, “he was reasonable, reasonable and proportionate in the performance of his duties, taking into account contemporaneous circumstances and the information available at all times.”
In their decisions, the judges emphasize that the plaintiff always ignores the following point: The analysis of the reasonableness and proportionality of the Bank of Spain’s actions must be made in the light of the available information and the circumstances prevailing at the time. not to the latter, after everything that has happened is known, through legal considerations and technical opinions on alternative solutions.
Thus he states: A criminal procedure was followed against members of the management and steering body of Banco de Madrid for alleged money laundering crimes. The case ended with the decision of the Madrid Regional Court dated July 3, 2019. with temporary layoff that is, “so far (…) there is not enough evidence” that the crime in question has been committed.
Oda adds: “temporary denial of judgment does not allow us to appreciateAs stated in the statement of claim,Irrationality or arbitrariness in the decision to interveneBecause in criminal proceedings, the scope of the prosecution must be clearly separated from what needs to be examined here, and at this point At that time, the existence of suspicions and serious accusations regarding the alleged crimes was sufficient. money laundering, under the circumstances outlined in the above-mentioned narrative of events, which led to important decisions by the “U.S. Treasury Department and the Andorran fiscal authority.”
It wasn’t unreasonable.
In the same sense, he also argues: ““The decision is unlikely to be unreasonable or clearly unfounded.”when “in criminal proceedings It took almost four years for the provisional expulsion decision to be made, “There is not even a verdict of acquittal.”
According to the court, a similar situation also occurs in the administrative sanction procedure. “The fact that it was archived in August 2021 for lack of appreciation of any administrative violations does not in any way affect the reasonableness of the decision to accept the intervention.We repeat, given the available information and the conditions existing at that time, let us remember that the launch of this initiative was not the Bank of Spain’s decision, but the Standing Committee of the Commission on Money Laundering and Monetary Crimes’, the facts disclosed in the audit report, administrative violations regarding the prevention of money laundering “It may constitute a problem,” he warns.