The ex president of Bankia, Rodrigo Rato, has assured this Monday before the National Court that did not contemplate the existence of problems or breaches on the part of the financial group that prevented to approve the annual accounts of 2011 in March 2012. "In my conscience there was no feeling that we had a problem of qualifications, nobody had transmitted it to me, "Rato insisted before the fourth section of the Criminal Chamber, which has acknowledged that although the partner auditor of Deloitte had shown concern about the valuation of the shares, it was not transferred.
To questions of the chief prosecutor of Anticorruption, Alejandro Luzón, who has replaced Carmen Launa in this session, still on medical leave, the former minister has assured that the Boards of Directors of Bankia and its parent company, BFA, had "the well-founded impression" that the audit firm was not going to make any negative comments about the accounts.
In this sense, although he admitted that since the end of 2011 he knew the concern of the audit partner Francisco Celma, also accused in the process, for the valuation of the shares of Bankia and BFA, this "does not say 'hey, this is essential and without I will not be able to give you an opinion without qualifications. "
Specifically, he referred to the delay in the presentation of the Deloitte report that should accompany the financial statements in its communication to the market, a delay that Rato and his team conceived as normal when they understood that the auditor was waiting for approval by part of the Bank of Spain of the plan with which the entity intended to exceed the requirements of the second decree Guindos.
The role of the auditor
Fact by which the Board of BFA "showed no concern" to approve the accounts in the absence of this document, as they thought that "the auditor was going to reserve a draft in the event that the Bank of Spain did not approve the plan. "
On the relationship with Celma, he has denied having any conversation with him between January and March of that year, and has indicated that he only contacted him a month later, in April, through a phone call "very short ", seeing that he did not present the report.
Likewise, the former vice-president of the Government, for whom the Prosecutor's Office asks for five and a half years in prison for swindling investors, has refused to hide the damage caused by the investees, since they had already considered it a breach in the accounts. .