October 30, 2020

The judge rejects Orcel’s complaint against Santander that accused the bank of evidence manipulation

Judge Marcelino Sexmero, of the Court of Instruction number 4 of Madrid, has inadmitted a complaint for alleged procedural fraud formulated by Andrea Orcel against Banco Santander in the lawsuit over the frustrated signing of the Italian banker as CEO of the entity, as stated in the car to which Europa Press has had access.

Orcel sued Santander on May 27, requiring, among other amounts, a compensation of 10 million euros for moral damages, compensation of 17 million for incorporation bonus or 35 million for assumption of long-term incentives in 3 or 5 annuities of salary

Santander responded to its application brief by providing documentation with which, according to the complainant, the bank wanted to manipulate the judge in the thesis that there was no contract, but a prior unconsolidated offer letter.

The Italian banker also indicated that the entity chaired by Ana Botín has tried to deceive the Court by manipulating certifications of the appointments of the appointments and remuneration committee, and the minutes of the board of directors of December 2018 and January 2019. According to Orcel, the documentation shows conversations other than those reflected in the minutes.

With his complaint, Orcel intended that Sexnero condemn Santander for a crime of procedural fraud, characterized in that the subject finally deceived is actually the judicial body who through a maneuver is induced to issue a resolution that otherwise I would not have dictated.

Although no sentence has been handed down in ordinary trial motivated by the alleged deception, the crime of procedural fraud also admits other imperfect forms of execution, including simple fraudulent maneuver without achieving the intended purpose. In this case, one could speak of an attempt when the deception is discovered.

In any case, Judge Sexnero records in the order that Santander’s conduct cannot be understood as fraudulent, “despite the narrative effort” of Orcel.

Among the documentation provided by the entity in response to the demand, for example, four emails were included to which Santander would have removed the logo or the sender, but the content of the same “is not discussed”, so it does not It is “manipulation enough” to cause error.

In sum, Orcel’s complaint against the documentation provided by Santander to its claim has not been admitted, although against this resolution it is possible to impose an appeal for reform and subsidiary of appeal within three days of the notification, or , direct appeal in the next five days.


Source link