In a formal ruling, the National Court of Spain addressed a family’s claim seeking a declaration of paternal responsibility related to damages arising from the intervention of Banco de Madrid and the broader implications for its parent company, Banca Privada d’Andorra (BPA). The case centers on damages estimated at 141 million euros tied to the 2015 bankruptcy events.
The Disputed Administrative Chamber concluded that the majority shareholders of Banco de Madrid had not run afoul of prescription, countering assertions presented by the Bank of Spain’s Board of Directors which argued the claim was time-barred in May 2021. The court found that the Ciercos family’s claim, filed on September 25, 2020, was lodged within the legal deadline applicable to this matter.
The Ciercos pursued legal action against Spanish police officers stationed in Andorra who allegedly pressured them to obtain financial information about Catalan citizens. In the latest phase of the complaint, the Institute for Human Rights of Andorra (IDHA) directed accusations against the former head of government and other senior officials. Testimony from the former commissioner José Manuel Villarejo, who was central to investigations into alleged police influence, was presented as evidence in this segment. The court, however, chose not to incorporate these criminal procedural details into the civil proceedings.
Regarding the Bank of Spain’s involvement with its Spanish subsidiary, the National Court rejected the argument that the Bank could be held financially liable. It held that the alleged interventions were, at the time, reasonable, proportionate, and consistent with duties and the information available, as contemporaneous circumstances dictated. The court emphasized that reasonableness and proportionality must be assessed against information available at the moment of the actions, not with retroactive hindsight after subsequent events.
The decisions stress that the plaintiffs consistently overlooked a critical point: the assessment of reasonableness and proportionality should be grounded in contemporaneous information and prevailing conditions, rather than hindsight or later legal interpretations. The narrative clarifies that although a criminal procedure was initiated against members of Banco de Madrid’s management for alleged money laundering, the Madrid Regional Court ruled on July 3, 2019, to suspend proceedings on the grounds that there was insufficient evidence to prove the crime at that time.
Ongoing commentary from the court notes that provisional judgments in criminal cases do not automatically resolve civil questions about administrative actions. It is acknowledged that suspicions and serious accusations existed at the relevant moment, and that these concerns were considered alongside the actions of the U.S. Treasury Department and the Andorran fiscal authority as described in the case records. The court cautions that the existence of later developments does not retroactively alter the evaluation of the initial interventions.
The ruling also argues that, in a parallel administrative sanctions process, the August 2021 decision to archive the case for lack of merit does not undermine the reasonableness of the decision to intervene. It notes that the origin of the intervention lay with the Standing Committee of the Commission on Money Laundering and Monetary Crimes, not solely with the Bank of Spain. It adds that the facts disclosed in the audit report and findings related to money laundering controls could be seen as significant, potentially warranting further consideration under the applicable legal framework.
Overall, the court’s analysis underscores the need to evaluate interventions against the backdrop of the information and circumstances that were actually present at the time. The judgment reiterates that the Bank of Spain acted in a measured and proportionate manner, in line with the information available during the relevant period, and not based on hindsight or later interpretations of the events that followed.
In sum, the case reflects a nuanced distinction between civil liability for damages arising from regulatory interventions and the criminal or administrative actions that accompany banking crises. The court’s decision emphasizes that later developments and new evidence do not automatically redefine the reasonableness of prior administrative actions, and that such actions must be weighed against the contemporaneous facts and authorities in effect at the time of the intervention. Source attribution: National Court records; procedural documentation from the Bank of Spain and related authorities.