All victims coincide in having lived the same nightmare…
Many people have been caught in the nets by the plot of the Banca Privada d’Andorra (BPA), where they maintain their personal and business accounts. When they chose to keep their funds with this discredited institution, they did not have the slightest idea of what could happen and, literally, saw their world falling apart.
There are many stories, many testimonies, some with first and last names, but all the victims coincide in having lived the same nightmare, adversely affected by the bad praxis of this entity. Many with payrolls domiciled in BPA and that has not been able to take out a single euro for almost two years. The most affected were those with more than 100 thousand euros in investment funds and that have not regained all their money, hence losing value with the passing of time.
This is the truth about a few characters in the BPA administration that have applied, have consented, have encouraged and have hidden, those practices that the financial world hates. A few scoundrels who, with their machinations, have put in question the name, the prestige and credibility of the country as a whole, and led to the misfortune of thousands of honest and hardworking families.
Carlos Cones, affected by the liquidation of the Banco Madrid, took almost eight months to recover the 50 thousand euros invested in that entity. He is only one of the 16 thousand clients who almost two years ago saw how in just 72 hours their entity fell apart.
But, 20 months later, doubts persist about the real reasons for the intervention of BPA and Banco Madrid, which according to specialists, were disproportionate, and they believe the 29 fraudulent operations, should never have been reason enough for such a drastic measure as liquidating an entity with 5 billion in funds, 300 employees and 25 offices.
Despite the fact that the United States withdrew the accusations of the BPA for laundering money for criminal organizations, long time ago, the Prosecution is suspiciously no longer investigating the managers. The Andorran judge Canólic Mingorance, in charge of the BPA case, has charged 23 former managers and officials of this entity for alleged money laundering. Of these defendants, at least 14 were already indicted in the main case and the alleged money laundering practices they are appointed for in relation to the company Redder and the well-known compensations, they had already been appointed for.
At the same time, the brothers Higini and Ramon Cierco, shareholding owners of the BPA, presented this past 26 November a lawsuit against the Government of Andorra, the Andorran National Institute of Finance (INAF) and the State Agency for Resolution of Banking Institutions (AREB), focusing on the damages caused by the blocking of their accounts with the BPA.
It is a court claim consisting of 53 pages that the companies of the Cierco brothers and their shareholders have submitted, which claims for the amounts adding up to the funds and the titles that were available in the accounts when the BPA was intervened in March 2015. Their arguments are based on that the assessment of the creditworthiness of the BPA was not done during the resolution process, which was boosted by the Government. Neither was the expropriation justified.
Added with this complaint against the State of Andorra, is also the most recent one filed by the former chief executive officer of the entity, Joan Pau Miquel, who still remains in custody.
Pau Miquel is claiming 17.8 million euros, an amount equivalent to the value of the shares that he possessed (3.6%) when this bank was intervened. The former management maintains that these shares are not worth anything because of the Andorran Government, of the Andorran National Institute of Finance (INAF) and of the State Agency for Resolution of Banking Institutions (AREB). He also wants to be reimbursed for moral damages suffered by the BPA case and seeks compensation for wrongful dismissal.
The art to seduce the large fortunes in this rotten plot is over for the Andorran banking, which is controlled by the wealthier families of the principality, due to its main asset – the discretion – having been called into question by presently not ensuring the anonymity of their clients.