“I felt alone, I had to deal with our resources, the Treviso prosecutor's office is undersized and I also had other processes to deal with. The only help came from the Guardia di Finanza, while all our requests to the State to increase the workforce were ignored. AND the statute of limitations for crimes will arrive by the autumn”. These are the words pronounced by the prosecutor regent of the Republic of Treviso, Massimo De Bortoli, owner of the investigation into the crash of Veneto Banca, at the Parliamentary commission of inquiry bis on banks.
More than a hearing, it seemed like a two-hour outburst, during which De Bortoli reconstructed the collapse of Veneto Banca and took stock of the ongoing trial against the former CEO of the Montebelluna bank Vincenzo Consoli, defined as "an absolute despot" that “he could have any manager he disliked fired and directors and statutory auditors dismissed. By imposing on his technical structures to identify a certain range, in the end he decided the value of the shares as he believed. By manipulating his subordinates, he made sure that false information was transferred to customers and he had no limits ”.
HISTORY
The process is about collapse of Veneto Banca, as a result of which around 6,5 billion euros went up in smoke, involving almost 90 thousand savers. In June 2016, the Bank launched a liability action against the former directors and statutory auditors in office until 26 April 2014, asking for damages of 2,3 billion euro. The following year, Veneto Banca, together with the Popolare di Vicenza, was purchased by Intesa Sanpaolo at the symbolic price of 50 cents. The two banks had previously been cleared of the non-performing loans charged to the Atlante fund, with public participation.
The trial underway at the Court of Treviso sees the former managing director and general manager Vincenzo Consoli as the only defendant, accused of rigging and obstruction of supervision. According to the indictment, between 2012 and 2013, when the inspectors of the Bank of Italy had accessed the financial statements to verify why the share price was "inconsistent with the financial situation of the company and with the economic context", Consoli would have communicated to via Nazionale an inflated patrimony (from 613 million real to 2,3 billion declared).
During the preliminary hearing held on 9 January, the Treviso investigating judge Gianluigi Zulian excluded the civil liability of Intesa Sanpaolo, but also of Bankitalia, Consob and the auditor PricewaterhouseCoopers (Pwc).
PORN WEAPONS
"Was a real bank fraud that lasted for years the one perpetrated against savers by Veneto Banca” underlined the prosecutor in charge of Treviso. During the hearing, De Bortoli highlighted how "in the face of such striking phenomena, which can be configured as a banking disaster, it is clear that the criminal justice system is blunt.”
"The CEO Vincenzo Consoli - continued the magistrate - together with some executives have deliberately and knowingly concealed the serious losses that the institute had suffered from the point of view of the supervisory assets due to an unfortunate policy of granting loans in some cases without any guarantee”,
“All of this, while the value of the share established by the shareholders' meeting on a proposal from the board of directors was always kept very high despite the real economic and financial condition of the bank. It is calculated that when in 2015 the share was said to be worth 39 euros but was actually worth 7 or 8. The value of the share in 2016 on the occasion of a last attempt at a capital increase then collapsed to 0,10 euros”, he explained.
“No precautionary measure is conceivable against Consoli, given that, being retired, there is no risk of recidivism and, having already acquired every element, he no longer has a way of polluting the evidence. There are no elements such as to fear the danger of escape, given that he resides in his beautiful villa in Vicenza, and, even in the event of a conviction, having exceeded 70 years, he will hardly do even just a few days in prison".
THE ROLE OF BANKITALIA
Could Bankitalia have done more? This is the question that many have been asking for years. According to De Bortoli, the Supervisory Authority could have done more in just a moment. "From what I have been able to verify, when the Board was renewed it was perhaps the only moment in which the Bank of Italy could perhaps have done more because Consoli was no longer CEO, but remained general manager and in fact the 'absolute dominus' of the bank. When the capital increase was implemented by Consob, perhaps Bankitalia could have said 'vokay but Consoli must not stay not even the general manager."
Nonetheless, according to the Treviso prosecutor "Bank of Italy did what it could. We think that the powers of inspection allow us to go beyond appearances, but in reality, in checks and inspections, the central institution obtains data from the entity that goes to check, but if the data is not real it is clear that even Bank of Italy can be misled just as Consob was misled”.
