This is stated in the resolution, in which the judge admits the complaint filed by the Valencian company, represented by Navarro Larriba Abogados, against Bankia, an attorney-in-fact and director of the bank, BFA Tenedora de Acción SAU , Krratus Inversiones Designaterd Activity Company – offshore company – and Hipoges Ibercia SL
The complaint includes the possible commission of the crimes of falsification in a commercial document; of punishable insolvency; of accounting falsification; a continued crime of misappropriation; and another of unfair administration.
The facts are limited to the years 2008 to 2011. The complainant registered a continuous series of negative results that persisted in all the exercises until February 2015, which led to the declaration of bankruptcy. As of 2009, Bankia began to grant advances for foreign operations, despite its negative treasury; and in 2010 and 2011 acted as an intermediary for the granting of ICO credits.
On these credits, the complaint states that the ICO requires as a minimum requirement for customers to access the financing to be up to date with their tax obligations with Social Security, a condition that did not meet the Valencian society as of 2011. In addition , the amount of these credits, it is alleged, was really to cover debit positions of other group companies in Bankia.
Likewise, during 2011, Bankia approved a loan with mortgage guarantee on properties owned by it and the amount of which was “allocated through different legal businesses to the cancellation of other credits and debts” that the complainant had pending payment with Bankia. Thus, “the amounts of this loan reverted back to Bankia, the only beneficiary of the business in clear damage to creditors and free of charge,” he adds.
Along with these operations, Kratus Investments Designated Activity Company, a company domiciled in Ireland and from which Bankia has been appointed since September 2016, became the holder of the senior debt of the Valencian merchant after an assignment transaction “that has a fraudulent “, is denounced.
“The assignment of mortgage loans and lines of credit by Bankia SA / BFA Tenedora de Acción SAU to Kratus Inversiones Designated Activity Company may be classified as a risky or highly speculative operation”. This is – adds the lawyer – “a complex operation, typical of people seasoned in the financial markets, by which it was not only to buy the credits effectively, but to lead to the de-matrimonialization of the debtor’s companies benefiting only the assignee company. ”
Therefore, it is indicated in the complaint, it is a transaction of financial derivatives “highly speculative, which was known and understood by the transferor and assignee companies, as well as by the individuals of both companies that performed the transaction”.
There is a “detriment” to the complainant “derived from the unacceptable conditions that the new creditors have filed”. And all this “with the purpose of guaranteeing the collection of the debt and the acceptance of the new financing requirements”, they say. “Kratus has executed the guarantees granted, thus aggravating the bankruptcy of the plaintiff”, it is asserted.
In summary, as reported, the defendants have been benefited with “fraudulent” operations, who, through “financial and prohibited devices, have achieved, in the despair of my client, the complainant, and the economic needs of their companies, that this it goes to ruin and loses all its personal and economic assets “.
Thus, – adds the same letter – Bankia has been enriched by a financial situation of absolute “insolvency” of the Valencian company: “It has managed to receive a portion of the net amount of turnover that reached 30% in 2011, almost at 50% in 2012 and more than 50% in 2013, applying interest of more than 25%, mortgages of maximum and inclusion of invoices already paid in discount lines “, among others.