The board of directors of the Association of inspectors of the Bank of Spain questions the ruling of the National Court that acquits the defendants in the so-called Bankia case of fraud and accounting falsification.
In a letter to his associates to which this newspaper has had access, he ironizes that, in view of the decision, "it only remains to try to find out what the" PEPAs "are,
the mysterious" specific provisions pending allocation ", which they exist in no regulations
"and that constitute one of the mainstays of the defenses so that the Bankia accounts were not put into question before their IPO in 2011.
Also, according to this association - which represents the vast majority of the Bank of Spain's inspection - it remains "to
know how more than 6.9 billion provisions that appeared in Bankia's IPO prospectus can be made in less than three months
( and, in addition, without going through the income statement), how is it possible that Bankia was viable at the time of its IPO and only a few months later presented a capital hole of billions of millions ".
He remembers that "the latter, in line with what the inspection team had anticipated in 2010 regarding its true value."
And finally he emphasizes that "public accounts with alleged benefits of three hundred million are transformed in just three months into public accounts with more than three billion losses", giving the sentence as
"correct both versions simultaneously".
The association pays tribute to the Bank of Spain's expert judicial inspectors who questioned the Bankia accounts and who, despite being the basis of the accusation of the Anti-Corruption Prosecutor's Office, have finally been ignored by the judges of the National Court.
The Prosecutor's Office itself and the Fund for Orderly Banking Restructuring (Frob) have decided not to appeal the acquittal.
"We also want to convey our appreciation and gratitude to Bankia's inspection team and to those of the rest of the savings banks participating in the merger who,
with courage and maximum commitment, unequivocally alerted and with more than enough time
to take action, of the situation of the participating entities and of what would happen if it was not acted correctly ", is stated in the letter in reference to the emails of José Antonio Casaus, among others.
The notices of the inspection were ignored by the top of the supervisor and, according to the sentence, they were not reflected in official reports, so they are not taken into account in the criminal process.
According to the criteria of The Trust Project
National CourtThe "very poor accusation" and other reproaches of the court to the "surprising" performance of the Prosecutor's Office in the 'Bankia case'
Pocket Is it time to invest in banks?
Politics The government parties and their allies charge against the judicial leadership "kidnapped by the right" and "split from democratic legality"
See links of interest
West Bromwich Albion - Burnley
Verona - Genoa
Leeds United - Wolverhampton Wanderers
Stage 16 of the Giro, live: Udine - San Daniele del Friuli
Stage 1 of the Vuelta, live: Irun - Arrate