He BBVA-Villarejo case It is a pressure cooker in which every time the cook – the bank – lowers a stove to lower the heat, another person accidentally rises. The entity chaired by Carlos Torres has been balancing games since the National Court decided in late 2018 to investigate its links with the commissioner Villarejo. The bank has had disagreements with shareholders, employees, the media, supervisors, prosecutors and the judge himself following this case. And all in spite of the fact that what is investigated are previous events and unrelated to the current president, according to the entity.
The axis of the discussions is on the legal strategy of the Basque group. BBVA and its advisers –Garrigues and Uría Menéndez– they are clear that Its success goes to show that the bank complied with the law and has had robust internal control systems during the 13 years that it hired Cenyt, the Villarejo company. Instead, a number of managers and employees repeatedly breached the rules. It is the line marked by the bank and does not want to go even a millimeter, even if it costs displeasure with the European Central Bank (ECB), the National Securities Market Commission (Cnmv) or the investigators of the National Court.
–
These disagreements were evident last Monday in the National Court. Judge Manuel García-Castellón and the prosecutor Ignacio Stampa have been with the feeling that the bank has been slower than it should have been in its internal investigation and that, instead of collaborating on what is important, flooded the court of papers. For this reason, the magistrate demanded, under threat of imputation, that the author of the ‘forensic’ of the bank, a partner of PwC, send 223 emails that he has been asking for Anti-Corruption for months. And Stampa was even clearer when pointing out that the collaboration of the bank “is a disguise”, and that it appreciates “manipulation” of tests. Very serious claims for one of the largest European banks in a case of national importance.
The 223 emails have been the drop that has filled the glass from researchers. Behind Monday’s reaction there are a series of events that have been raising doubts between judge and prosecutors, such as that the bank did not accept the offer of help from the judicial police to streamline and deepen the internal investigation; to choose the same law firms to lift carpets and defend him in the case; that you have left seemingly key topics and words out of the forensic; and that the firm chosen to carry out this report was the same one that reviewed the crime prevention systems in 2010 and 2015.
Counteroffensive
The bank has tried to lower criticism of its internal investigation in a letter sent to the judge this week: “Always, in any investigation, any alternative chosen means leaving others out […]. You have to make decisions, Selection criteria must be adopted, and what matters is that they are adequate and proportionate to the purpose pursued. We believe they have been here, “states the brief, signed by Jaime Alonso Gallo, from Uría, and Helena Prieto, from Garrigues.
Among the decisions that criticize the accusations is not having thoroughly investigated the emails linked to the Sacyr’s assault, in which there is more evidence of the puncture of telephones —crossing calls— by Commissioner Villarejo for the bank.
Francisco González puts Carlos Torres at the center of the BBVA-Villarejo case
The former BBVA president pointed out in his statement that his successor and his right hand had a key role in the departure of Corrochano, the head of Security who brought Villarejo
This bank strategy has led to the emergence doubts about the figure of Torres. Rival bankers point out that the Salamanca financier should have cut the umbilical cord with Francisco González (FG) from the beginning, and even having voluntarily gone to the National Court to offer their full collaboration. The former took time to do so, trying to personify himself as harmed by practices that allegedly benefited FG.
And the second is more in question after knowing that the bank has not thoroughly investigated Torres nor to his right hand, Ricardo Forcano, who was the direct head of the head of Security for almost two years. All this has led to rumors that the bank is being more careful not to implicate its president. Official BBVA sources point out that in all the investigation carried out so far, they have not found any fact that leads them to Torres, and therefore they have not checked their email.
–
In fact, among the investigators they are surprised that the name of Torres’ right-hand man does not appear in all the documentation offered by the bank to the Court, despite having been Corrochano’s superior for so long. This situation also generates discomfort among other defendants that they began to be as a result of a file that the bank sent to the court, indicating those responsible for verifying the hiring of Cenyt and authorizing his invoices. As a result of this, former directors were charged as Ángel Cano, ex-CEO who at the time investigated held the same position as Forcano in 2016 and 2017; Antonio Béjar (Spain risks), Javier Malagón (Financial), Ignacio Pérez Caballero (Spain Network) or Inés Díaz (Security).
Failure to review Torres’ emails could strain the bank’s relationship with the Cnmv. Thus, the bank stated in its latest corporate governance report: “It should also be noted that the relevant documentation obtained from the ‘forensic’ investigation, still ongoing, which has been made available to the judicial authorities and is the basis of the summary brief, There is no involvement of any of the current members of the board of directors, nor of the current executive president of the entity, nor has the commission of criminal activities by the bank been verified. “The entity did not clarify that Torres had not been specifically reviewed in that external work.
Tension with Frankfurt and the CNMV
BBVA already had a brush with the supervisor in 2018. On October 10 of that year, the supervisor requested the bank to clarify its relationship with Cenyt and the possible consequences of the same. The secretary of the BBVA board, Domingo Armengol, dispatched the issue in a folio explaining the billing with the Villarejo company between 2013 and 2017 and summarizing that this case did not involve “a risk that could represent a significant impact for BBVA”.
Two and a half months later, the CNMV contacted the group again after the revelations made by this medium and Moncloa.com, warning the bank of the possible consequences of not having told the truth in the first writing. He requested new documentation “in order to verify if they could have provided this Commission with inaccurate or untrue data or omitted relevant data”. This letter was answered by the legal responsible, María Jesús Arribas, with a shipment of 150 pages between writing and annexes.
The ECB asked BBVA for additional information on the forensic for the Villarejo case
The central bank sent a request to the judge in which it explained the importance of the findings to analyze the managers and the compliance mechanisms.
The bank experienced similar tension with the ECB, how tired of insistently request information At the bank, he chose to go directly to the National Court, something unusual for the supervisor. The bank argued that it could not reveal secrets from the investigation. Judicial sources indicate, however, that BBVA could have shared everything related to its forensic with the supervisor without skipping the summary secret.
All these shocks show that BBVA prioritizes avoiding liability criminal in the Court before many other fronts. Time will tell if this strategy is bread for today and hunger for tomorrow, or vice versa.
– .
