In a landmark ruling, the Supreme Court affirmed the acquittal of 34 defendants tied to the Bankia public offering case, including the former bank chief Rodrigo Rato, who also once led the International Monetary Fund. The court’s decision closes a decade-long legal chapter, underscoring that prosecutors failed to prove intent to defraud or misreporting in the IPO process. This culmination follows a lengthy trial that stretched across ten years and drew intense scrutiny from financial authorities and political figures alike.
Dating back to May 2012, a few months after Bankia’s public listing, the institution underwent nationalization as part of broader financial reforms. In the wake of the IPO, the political party UPyD, led by Rosa Díez, presented a complaint to Spain’s top court, signaling the case would endure into the highest judicial levels. The Supreme Court’s criminal chamber dismissed challenges that had been filed more than two years earlier, on September 29, 2020, by the National Court’s Criminal Division. It concluded that the IPO and the surrounding disclosures had received the explicit appraisal of multiple regulatory bodies, including the Bank of Spain, the National Securities Market Commission, the Fund for Orderly Bank Resolution, and the European Banking Authority. The two remaining appeals, brought by the Spanish Association of Minority Shareholders of Listed Companies and Bochner Spain, were also rejected, finalizing the appellate review at the highest level.
The court emphasized that the offer of shares was supported by a broad set of financial and nonfinancial disclosures that the Bank of Spain had reviewed. It noted that the decision to go public, coupled with the choice to operate Bankia under a dual banking structure, was undertaken with full consideration by the central bank, which monitors and approves all steps through its supervisory services. The ruling asserts that the entire process leading up to the listing, which began in mid-2011, was known, supervised, and authorized by the Bank of Spain and approved by the Ministry of Economy. Some defenders, including Rato, argued that the IPO and the merger under the new structure were legal business choices rather than expedients for profit; the Court found that both institutions and officials at the time were aligned with the public interest, especially as financial sector reforms moved forward after the era of savings banks reforms.
The Court confirmed that the operation and its double-bank framework were decisions made after careful evaluation of potential risks and benefits. It highlighted that the supervisory authority conducted a thorough, step-by-step audit and approval process through its Inspection Service, leaving little room for later denial of the substantial data gathered during the review. The narrative also pointed to the inconsistencies among expert opinions presented by the prosecution and by the defense, yet acknowledged that some disagreement among technical analysts should not overshadow the core evidence that supported the oversight and decision-making by financial authorities involved in the IPO.
In its detailed reasoning, the Supreme Court compared the perspectives of accusers with those of Bankia executives, noting that the management team’s choices were made within a complex regulatory framework rather than in isolation. While the National Court had previously found grounds for fault, the Supreme Court’s final assessment centered on whether misleading conduct occurred during the process. It concluded that no proven fraudulent behavior existed in relation to the IPO, though it recognized that other interpretations of the evidence could be offered by some expert witnesses or claimants. This nuanced stance reflects the court’s effort to balance accountability with the recognition that regulatory authorities had been actively steering the sector through a period of structural changes in the Spanish banking system.
Alongside Rodrigo Rato, the acquitted defendants included notable former Bankia executives and public officials such as the former managing director José Manuel Fernández Norniella, the former vice president José Luis Olivas and his successor Francisco Verdú, the former Interior Minister Angel Acebes, the controller Sergio Durá, and Deloitte audit partner Francisco Celma. The resolution thus prevents further criminal liability for these figures in connection with the IPO, while leaving room for continued public and institutional scrutiny of the era’s financial reforms. Academics, investors, and policy watchers have since debated what lessons the case holds for corporate governance, regulatory oversight, and the balance between rapid financial innovation and prudent supervision. The ruling is cited as a reminder of the heavy responsibilities borne by bank executives and regulatory bodies when navigating large-scale public offerings during periods of transition in the financial landscape.