states that the “unjustified” intervention agency has damaged his reputation and business viability and requesting reinstatement
MADRID, 13 (EUROPA PRESS )
Members of the Board of Private Banking Andorra (BPA) have been provisionally dismissed filed a court case against the precautionary measures taken by the Andorran regulator, Andorra National Institute of Finance (INAF) on 10 and 11 March, which led to its temporary suspension in the Andorran bank and the appointment of three interim managers.
In the lawsuit, filed before the Administrative Section of the Magistrates Court (first Andorran judicial body ) indicates that the performance of the INAF “has led to BPA, its employees, customers and shareholders severe damages involving violations of rights protected by law”, said in a statement.
The plaintiffs allege the case began hastily without the necessary legal basis, so request invalid and should be resumed at an early stage, thereby reinstatement of directors provisionally relieved of his duties. Also expressly reserves the subsequent exercise of action Precautionary measures is done to claim compensation from.
, explains the lawsuit, have only served to worsen the situation of the bank, generating alarm and compromising the stability of the bank and the rest of the Andorran financial system.
On March 10, the INAF decided to initiate disciplinary proceedings against BPA “on suspicion and responsible for a very serious infringement and against the alleged subject responsible for the possible infringement committed by that company. “
According to the plaintiffs, the action of INAF not clarify the nature of the very serious infringement or refers to information or documents to which he would had access in the performance of his duties as an authority of the Andorran financial system and allow you to verify the alleged existence of a very serious offense.
In this sense, the demand appeals that the law expressly grants the right to be informed of the facts that are imputed, of offenses that have been committed and penalties that could be imposed, the right to make claims and propose evidence deemed appropriate, and the right to presumption of innocence, etc. .
EXPOSED AND INFRINGEMENT
The lawsuit also argues that the INAF should have found a compromise between the effectiveness of the decision whose challenge is chasing is now solicitada- and the legal and constitutional need to grant audience to stakeholders (members of the board of the entity) regarding the adoption of damaging his honor that also have limited their legitimate rights and interests.
It also suggests that the record did not even move the motivation for the measure, an effective control mechanism against any administrative arbitrariness.
The defendants claim be defenseless against the declarations and public appearances their political representatives. “Appearances that each and every one, have assumed a presumption of guilt on the board of BPA,” write in the letter.
The lawsuit explains that the brief statement of the facts, apparently causes the decision of INAF is based on public notification of FinCEN (dependent on the US Treasury body) without going to present facts or specific actions of persons responsible for the management of BPA that could be susceptible to justify an administrative penalty.
In fact, the document lists three cases linked BPA to customers who would be charged with alleged money laundering. These issues, detailing the demand, were prosecuted by the intervention years (2011-2012) of the Andorran criminal jurisdiction and the subsequent monitoring of the processing of international letters rogatory under international criminal law cooperation. Two of these cases also upgraded the investigation stage of Spanish criminal jurisdiction, namely the National Court in Madrid.
The lawsuit notes that in the days prior to the intervention of INAF, the solvency and liquidity BPA is found well above that required by regulation (10% solvency and 40% of liquidity), as its solvency ratio stood at 18% and liquidity at 60%.
In his view, the “sudden and unjustified” INAF intervention last March 10 represented a serious effect on the balance of society and has damaged their business viability.
Also, underlines the fact that BPA is audited by outside firms “first class” and the existence and validity of internal regulations on the prevention of money laundering and terrorist financing, audited bank, not only by external firms, but by certificates official issued by the Financial Intelligence Unit (FIU) of Andorra
.
No comments:
Post a Comment