The National audience it has confirmed the file of the cause for fraud in the issuance of preferred shares of the former Caja Madrid and Bancaja – now integrated in Bankia – a separate piece that Judge Fernando Andreu had opened within the Bankia case. The Third Section of the Criminal Chamber considers that it has not been proven that the preferred ones were issued with the objective of deceiving the investors.
"There are no elements in the expert report that allow to affirm the deterioration of the entity," says the car. "Proof of this is that the issue was partially exchanged with the preferentistas," he adds. The court thus confirms Andreu's decision, which last May chose to archive the separate piece, for lack of crime, despite the fact that it recognized "serious deficiencies" in the commercialization of the product.
As already noted by judge Andreu in May, the court believes that "it has not been proven, even circumstantially" that the issuers of the preferred ones knew at the time of marketing the product that the entity would reach "an insolvency situation that would strip of your investment to thousands of investors. "
In the absence of this attempt to deceive the buyers, the decision of the National Court closes criminal proceedings for those affected, who can only go to the civil jurisdiction, where Many investors have obtained favorable judgments.
Initially the investigations of Judge Andreu were directed to investigate two issues of Bancaja in 1999 and 2000 for 600 million euros and two of Caja Madrid in 2004 and 2009 for a total of 1,140 and 3,000 million euros respectively.
In February 2017, a Commercial Court of Madrid declared null some of the general conditions of the contracts signed by those affected by the preferred Caja Madrid but rejected his claim to recover the investment. Those affected had come together to present a macrodemanda, a collective action, led by the Adicae association. The ruling left open the possibility that the 3,057 investors recovered their investment with individual claims.
"The judge considered that there were irregularities in the commercialization of preferential services, as a result of the dissemination of incomplete information and inadequate practices," said a spokesperson for Adicae. By declaring void, as abusive, some clauses "ordered Bankia to eliminate them from contracts and to cease their use," he adds.