The viacrucis bancario cost Pedro Gómez health and wealth. He prefers not to reveal his real name, to preserve his privacy. He entrusted the Popular with the 4.5 million obtained from the sale of the family business, and not only lost almost all of it, but also contracted debts of around two million euros, making use of the financing offered to him to invest almost everything your heritage. For years, the businessman lived convinced that his money was safe, generating returns, until discovering its ruin.
The bank argued that its client had the necessary information, assuming the risks inherent in the contracted products. The ruling recognizes that, as noted by the Popular, the plaintiff wanted to invest and did so in the desired product, although "with ignorance or misunderstanding of their characteristics." Before investing in the complex product, he had had shares in banks. But the judge considers that "it is not a receipt that a banking client that sells his participation in his company for 4.5 million euros, five years later is in this situation. To be responsible for such consequences must be fully proven that the bank informed him exquisitely of the risks of the product (…) can not but conclude that the information was deficient and that the consent of the actor at the time of investing was therefore flawed " .
Gómez, a Rioja resident in Navarra, studied high school and began working at a young age in the family business. The Popular was encouraged to invest his only assets in a product he had never heard of before: a CFA.
The first 3.5 million euros were deposited, in 2008, in a five-year term autocancellable financial contract, which guaranteed an initial coupon of 19% of the deposit and offered an additional variable return of between 20% and 80% . This profitability would depend on whether Popular or BBVA shares maintained their value. On the crest of the wave prior to the crisis, he was persuaded to invest the coupon collected from the first contract and his remaining assets, until he covered the million euros needed to design a new contract, dependent on the price of BBVA and Telefónica.
As Gomez could not touch the money in the five years of the contracts or cancel them, he had to resort to loans. He must have put the contracts and his result as collateral. He contracted convinced that his patrimony was still intact, as it appeared in his fiscal extracts, when in fact since 2009 he was ruining himself. In 2013 the contracts expired and the 4.5 million became less than 700,000 euros distributed in depauperate shares, blocked along with their dividends, to guarantee the debt. Once the lawsuit was filed, the Popular decided not to renew the deficiencies of the loans and prevented the release of shares to pay debt and generates a limit situation, with a letter of 9,000 euros a month that Gómez could not pay.
It is not the first time that a court annuls the investment in a CFA. In June, the Provincial Court of Madrid and the Popular condemned to return another entrepreneur four million euros. On the specific case of Pamplona, the lawyer of the person affected, Daniel Zubiri, of the Zubiri & Zudaire firm, assures that "it is very particular because of the very high amount invested by a consumer as well as the risk and complexity of the product, and the failure to comply with all obligations. of information required by law. "
According to the ruling, the Popular did warn him that the losses could reach 100% of the invested capital, but not in a sufficiently clear way, since to arrive at that affirmation, according to the ruling "a detour is given explaining that the loss is a consequence of the revaluation of the acquired shares, technicality that obscures the understanding of the clause ".