The National Court has refused on Tuesday to investigate the systematic concession of overvalued mortgages by Caja Madrid between 2003 and 2009, coinciding with the real estate bubble, by admitting a recourse presented by the ex-general manager of the entity, Ildefonso Sánchez Barcoj.
The Third Section of the Criminal Chamber of the Hearing has accepted the appeal filed by Barcoj and has rejected the complaint filed on March 30 by two individuals . The head of the central court of investigation number 5, José de la Mata, considered admitting the complaint that there were indications of several possible crimes, including fraud, as well as unlawful association and falsification of documents, since the facts would have had a serious impact on the economy national.
The former president of Caja Madrid Miguel Blesa , Barcoj and other executives of the financial institution would have allowed the falsification and concealment of the accounts of the entity through a systematic practice supported by the appraiser of the group. Valuations Madrid valued the mortgaged properties above their price, which allowed to conceal the granting of loans “above 100% of the price of the sale”.
Valuations Madrid would have valued the mortgaged properties above their price
The Board understands that it is not possible to speak of a generalized bad practice, given that the cases analyzed are only one hundred, and indicates that the difference between the purchase price and the appraisal value could be due in many cases to that a lower price was written the real one In the buying and selling process and in the price fixing, remember the car, does not intervene the financial institution.
It is true that some operations had a “low quality” appraisal report, but after housing prices began to fall. “What is difficult to prove becomes an impossible crime,” says the car, which recalls that the valuation of a property is valid for three months , very little in a context of great volatility of the real estate market.
The bank did not “cheat” its customers
Caja Madrid, understands the car, did not “cheat” those who bought mortgage bonds referenced to the loans, which obtained the expected return on their investment. Likewise, it has not been demonstrated that the cashier had an “express and detailed internal order” on appraisals , but applied risk policies. In any case, the appraisals can be considered “inveraces” or erroneous, says the Chamber, but not “inauthentic” or false.
Regarding the accusation of embezzlement of public funds, the order states that those investigated, the executives of Caja Madrid, were not public servants, “nor were the funds arranged in the loans public,” but rather of investors and partners. In addition, it adds that Bankia “is not a direct successor of Caja Madrid” , so the entry of the Fund for Orderly Bank Restructuring (FROB) came after the events reported.
In practice, the successor of Caja Madrid is the current Montemadrid Foundation , which inherited its governing bodies, but Judge De la Mata required Bankia, which received the financial business of the entity, to provide documentation on the main decision-making bodies. during the investigated period. In March, when the complaint was filed, the Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office opposed its admission arguing, among other reasons, that the overvaluation of the appraisals was “a generalized practice” by all entities. For this reason, the Prosecutor General’s Office considered last April that the facts denounced “had no criminal relevance” and ruled out the commission of the crimes.