The High Court on Tuesday gave a severe blow to the president of Caja Madrid, Miguel Blesa, although their legal arguments by the sense of resolution, where as expected, civil deposit confirms 16 million for its financial responsibility in the scandal (‘Black’) t B, which enjoyed 83 former directors and former officials of the institution of savings between 2003 and 2012 and whose default led to the initiation of an investigation into his assets by failing to garnish considered valid policy written with Mapfre. And according to the judges who reviewed his appeal against the injunction, the exfinanciero comes to lie in some of its exculpatory arguments.
In particular, members of the Third Criminal Section of the judiciary believe that it is untrue that the Board of Directors of Caja Madrid had authorized or endorsed controversial delivering cards, let alone the use made of them. Specifically, Blesa said last October 16 at the instructor ‘case Bankia’, Judge Fernando Andreu, the existence of this plastic money and provisions made by the same came “protected by certain agreements” of that body and even cited in his application the minutes of the meetings that took the May 24, 1988, on June 20, 1994 and October 30, 1995, and two more meetings of the Executive Committee (May 23 and 14 November 1988).
After reviewing these documents in detail, the judges concluded that neither the payment is authorized by the company to directors and officers, either directly or through credit cards “costs other than those derived from travel and entertainment expenses, or incurred as a result of discharging their functions within the entity.” As an example, he cites the minutes of May 1988 where the need to “make efforts and dedication” of these officials to the smallness of their diet is recognized, and even get to talk to “seek a system of” special payment a monthly limit. “But always in clear reference to representation expenses and allowances,” insists the court.
The Most
as 50
On another occasion, in October 1995, mentioned the existence of VISA, but specified that are “solely for entertainment expenses.” Therefore, the Board concluded that “under no such -in against alleged by Blesa- the issuance, delivery and use made” cards of B. Similarly, put in serious doubt that they can be considered additional remuneration, although this was the thesis defense used by the three defendants in this piece of ‘Bankia case’: the last two presidents of Caja Madrid’s Blesa Rodrigo Rato own-both accused of a continuing offense of unfair administration punishable by up to four years in jail, next to be his number two in the state, Ildefonso Sanchez Barcoj.
“no sense”
To the judges, his exculpatory version “so far lacks support in the proceedings” because the cards for the B items “were not counted properly”, not included in the accounts relating to remuneration. “I also practiced -añaden- retention (mainly tax) would have been timely and appropriateness” if it were actually part of his salary. Indeed, note that neither the recipients of such sums themselves declared them “lacking besides sense” if the goal was to raise their pay “not agreed to do so directly.”
“Such circumstances could not be unknown M. Blesa, who for 13 years presided over the institution, “says the ruling National Court, which also states that the exfinanciero” can not plead ignorance in a practice that was done to their satisfaction, “and also “contributed effectively” from his post.
Also, contrary to the view of the defense that would not have harmed by the events under investigation, magistrates deny this argument and considered “no doubt” that, at least, it does have that condition itself Bankia and the Fund for Orderly Bank Restructuring (FROB), to the extent that without that 15.5 million hole in its accounts for abuses during a decade with B cards rescuing the company public capital (in 2012 22,400 million) would have been lower.
No comments:
Post a Comment