The attached picture corresponds to Mr. Jesus Pérez de la Cruz Oña, acting lawyer for Nordea
Bank Luxembourg S.A., nothing wrong with that. In fact, his austere expression conveys seriousness and rectitude, qualities that these days are in short supply.
Mr. Pérez Cruz represents a company, Nordea Bank Luxembourg S.A., that produced what is probably the most comprehensive tax-evasion brochure ever to be published by any company, and perhaps the only bank to have done so, so far with little consequences for them. And he defends its content vigorously, for which he gets paid nicely, as a result of his swear-in ceremony, wherever it took place; again, nothing wrong with that.
Let’s remember what Nordea said:
Borrowers may take up a mortgage loan either at the time of the purchase of a Spanish property or after having owned the property for some time….the latter case is more aggresive from a tax point of view and therefore more uncertain…taking up a mortgage loan at a later stage runs the risk of the Spanish authorities questioning the purpose of the mortgage…as this publication was being prepared, mortgaging Spanish property some time after its original acquisition was a matter of some debate in Spain…according to the information the authors had at their disposal at the time of writing, taking up a mortgage at a later stage was still expected to be accepted by the Spanish authorities in future.
Generally speaking, the risk of receiving unwelcome enquiries from the Spanish taxman should only exist in situations where the owner is a non-resident who takes up a mortgage loan with the aim of trying to minimize his/her net wealth tax liability.
But one thing is not right: Mr. Perez Cruz says in his CV that he practiced for prestigious Uria & Menendez, a company that said about these products – before removing the paragraph following a phone call from Rothschild- the following:
It may not be discarded that the Spanish Authorities may try to challenge the deductibility of a loan granted to a non-resident for IHT purpose under the arguments that either (i) the debt has been “simulated” for the exclusive purpose of reducing the Spanish IHT liability or (ii) because the lack of connection of the debt transaction with Spain, the Spanish elements of the debt have been artificially incorporated to the debt…
Groucho Marx: Those are my principles, and if you don’t like them… well, I have others
It has been said before, that Nordea Bank lawyers have a duty to defend their client. Having said this they are officers of the court and should do so in a professional and correct way as their code stipulates. This is certainly the case in England, however perhaps the Spanish work on a different set of rules.Can this be said of Jesus Perez de la Cruz Ona, Nordea’s lawyer. I am sure that this oath does not allow them to mislead the court for their own ends and monetary gain, he should be brought before the Spanish Law Society to explain his actions. As we have seen from many posts and comments on this web site there are dozens of Directives setting out the rules of IHT and Wealth taxes. We have also seen Nordea Bank defence to these mis leading/fraudulent sales brochures, in fact they do not admit OR deny that their brochures are mis leading/fraudulent simply stating “Their victims did not sign the contracts as a result of the statements made in their brochures” OR ” If they did then it is their own fault as we told them to seek other advice” What a nonsensical attitude this is. This sort of statement will not satisfy the Mercantile Court where they have been reported for mis leading/fraudulent advertising. If my memory serves me correctly they have but a few days left to defend these and show that they conform in every respect to the Spanish Regulations. Perhaps some one from erva will bring us up to date on this latter point.
FROM THE ERVA TEAM. to all members.
Answering the above comment made by pjames. ERVA has been in touch with its lawyers who have informed us that as yet we have not heard back from the Mercantile Court as to Nordea defence, but as soon as we do, we will post it on this web site. Whilst commenting, Uria & Menendez have not responded to our lawyers two letters, as to why when having given their opnion and ruling mentioned in the post above, then subsequently after a request by Rothschild or their partners in crime or some other entity decided to take out the very crucial paragraph on “SIMULATED” mortgaged loans to avoid/evade paying IHT & WEALTH TAXES. Erva lawyers wil be chasing up a response today. As we have stated this is far too important to leave another day. Once again thanks for all your comments, they really are helpfull, so keep them coming, its nice to know you are out there with your support.
Impressive CV one has to admit. The only qualification that I can’t find is a Doctorate in ETHICS. Then again he is perfect as a Nordea “lap dog” The $ sign must be in ingrained into his brain, such as it is. Nordea Bank are also devoid of ehtics. Instead they choose to throw millions of Euro away of their shareholders and investors money in defending what they know to be fraudulent activities. Their analogy is simple, lets fight to the bitter end, for to give up now will show a sign of weakness and start a precedent. Are they not aware that eventually they will be brought to account for their actions and it will cost them far more money that if they did the right thing and settle these claims now. For sure, the first case the courts rule against them will result in so much media pressure and no doubt a lot of heads will roll.
Should the Spanish Judge not be told about Urea and Menendez?
They should surely be reported to the Spanish authorities and beware of anyone using them.
How rotten can a lawyer get when a rotten Bankster needs a favour, one wonders?
It is no wonder the world is on its knees !
I totally agree with your comments. Karen you have hit the nail on the head regarding your question of ethics, by now I think you have realised both this lawyer & Nordea are singing from the same hymn sheet. George, there is no doubt that Mr de la Cruz should be asked to account for his ethics and be reported to the Spanish Law Society (if there is such a thing) But don’t hold your breath the Spanish legal system is still in its infancy and not like we have come to understand the legal system in England. Having said this I believe it is slowly changing. Perhaps erva can ask their lawyers to complain on their behalf.