Most of the banks are using the “limitation of liability” clause to argue that, whilst “every endeavour has been made to ensure the accuracy of the information provide, we cannot take any responsibility for losses sustained as a result of relying total or partially on it”.
This dishonest clause, an indipensable tool in the sales kit of any dishonest business operator worth his salt, was for example used by Nordea Bank Luxembourg S.A. to say that although loads of tax advice was given, they can never be held responsible for it.
But then, article 130 of the Consumer Protection Act states the following:
Inefficacy of limitation or exoneration of liability clauses: clauses limiting or exonerating from responsibility in respect of instances of civil responsibility under this Act are not applicable and thus, inefficacious.
See what NORDEA says about their booklet:
inheritance – the available possibilities of ensuring that your descendants prosper;
life assurance may be the optimal way to mitigate the impact of inheritance tax.
This, and more, in 2013 and for Spain.
Certainly a logical piece of legislation. Usually one reads all the sales brochures laying down the benefits of entering into such schemes, such as mitigating taxes etc. Then one signs the contract, only to find that they try to exonerate themselves by finally stating somewhere in the small print, that what they have said is rubbish and you need to seek futher advice. If they are not sure of the law and the tax savings then why not come out and say it or better still “DON’T PUT IT INTO PRINT” These banks no precisely what they are doing, they are conning people. The courts do not fall for these old scams, which is why regulations like the one posted are brought ino being.
Surely the courts don’t fall for such underhand tricks to entice people into such schemes. I agree how can Nordea spend so much time with their in house lawyers, marketing staff and tax specialists. Then draw up quite informative brochures enticing people to join their scheme in what they say are legal avoidance tax mitigating/avoidance/evasion schemes, only to say once they have been trapped, that they should seek further advice. Surely they must have been aware of the Spanish IHT and Unit Linked Assurance Regulations as shown in one of these posts. I refer to the 2002 Royal Decree passed into law stating that the beneficiaries of the ULLIP had to pay IHT in Spain irrespective of where the beneficiary resided and taxed. These brochures were distributed to their clients and readily available on the Internet for all to see were published after 2002. Perhaps their Spanish Lawyers & Tax experts must have been aware of these regulations and advised Nordea Bank accordingly. Yet they still chose to ignore this advice and use the tax angle to coerce and frighten their clients into entering into such schemes. We have seen in the past that URIA & MENENDEZ in a report warned Rothschild that this was a “SIMULATION” loan and could be challenged by the Spanish Inland Revenue. Later this report was modified leaving out this paragraph. Does it not show what lengths these banks will go to to make money. The truth of the matter Nordea Bank was aware of the regulations but deliberately lied to secure business. The truth is out there somewhere and no doubt the ERVA investigation team will find it.