The Bank of Spain that governed the socialist Miguel Ángel Fernández Ordóñez (MAFO), at the time of Zapatero's governments, in the best of cases, looked the other way in the Bankia Stock Exchange. MAFO, as some former collaborators privately point out, never wanted problems to arise with the old savings banks and worked to get around the problem. The Bank of Spain, however, every day seems clearer than it was at the end of the street. On Monday, Inspector José Antonio Delgado Manzanares told the National Court that Bankia went public with "incorrect information". Yesterday, another inspector, José Antonio Casaus, explained to the magistrates who judge Rodrigo Rato and his team that the whole process was "imprudent" and admitted that he, as inspector – and therefore the Bank of Spain -, committed "an error". Everything is complicated because Casaus himself admitted to the court that his initial purpose was to prepare a report in which he explained that between 8,000 and 12,000 million of provisions were missing, which could be capital, but somehow his superior, Pedro Comín , in the institution that governed Ferández Ordóñez, suggested him or asked that his opinion "not commit much," the operation is supposed.
The Casaus declaration, which in any case puts Fernández Ordóñez and his team in the auction, is inscribed in a thin technical line that, to a certain extent, would mask what happened. Casaus stated that "in the end, Bankia fell because BFA (Financial and Savings Bank), parent and owner of most of the shares of the financial institution," was unfeasible. " "If they had been two independent banks," he added, "BFA would have been intervened and Bankia not." The inspector defended a certain ambiguity, because he explained that he did not rule out that the initial project of Caja Madrid with five other entities could have become assumable. In short, after the declaration of Casaus, which claims that "it was not an easy time to manage or supervise", Justice faces the challenge of determining the responsibility of Rato and his team, but also the Bank of Spain , because he gave his approval to an operation that could not have culminated. Without this MAFO endorsement, even if by default and in volve to the Government of the time, it is unlikely that thousands of investors, especially individuals, would have been encouraged to buy shares of Bankia in its IPO, regardless of profitability impossible to insure. Now, that "imprudence" depends on Justice.