Deutsche Bank will have to repay over 3 million Euros to 49 customers who invested, through this bank, inLehman Brothers, Landsbanki and Kaupthing toxic financial products.
In spite of an earlier dismissal of the claim by a Court of First Instance, the Madrid Appeal Court considers that the bank failed in its statutory duties towards their clients: diligence, loyalty and clear information on their products.
According to the ruling, Deutsche Bank failed to explain not only the nature and characteristics of high risk products, such as the “preference shares” but also, the financial and economical risks of the underlying investments.
The deciding Magistrates stressed that the investors were looking for profitability but shied away from capital losses, adding that there profile was not typical of ‘people gambling away in a roulette hard-earned money saved over a long time.’
Could this be the start of something as a Spanish court has ruled against one of these rogue banks?
Rogue Banks and Investment Funds operated by rogues based in rogue tax havens employing rogue salesmen — quite a number of rogues to hunt down then!
And these are premier league rogues who resort to stealing pensioner´s life savings by pretending that their wretched “products” are “low risk” when they are not only high risk but totally useless!
But it’s a good business to be in – plenty of profits for both the Banks and the Funds, not forgetting the generous commissions paid to the rascals employed to assist in “selling” their putrid products.
Meanwhile elderly people gaze on defencelessly as the product of a lifetime´s work evaporates into these Ponzi Scheme.
The description “rogue” is too polite … How about cowardly thugs?
But maybe, just maybe the pensioners will finally get their vengeance …
It is interesting to note that yet again the Court of First Instance has been overruled by more learned judges in the Court of Appeal. The problem is that in the Court of First Instance the judge is not necessarily an experience lawyer experienced in these type of financial matters, consequently it is much easier to gloss over the real facts throw it out and leave it to a more competent and experienced court and judges. In fact a person just out of law school can apply to become a judge and could in theory be appointed to the court. Although I have not read this particular case in full, it would seem that this is pretty straight forward. Would it not be nice to have many of our cases reviewed by these same judges. Not only can we demonstrate similar matters but in my opinion far more evidence of tax fraud, deceit and downright thuggery in conning so many pensioners of their life’s work. So beware Rothschild, Barclays, Danske Bank, Nordea Bank, Sydbank, SLM and all you other banks guilty of much the same. You time will come.
It does seem that the courts are finally getting to grips with all this mis-selling, perhaps a little behind the USA and UK courts, but getting there. Hopefully this will rub off on some of the cases that Antonio Flores has in the pipeline.
This of course is not the only one. There are many such cases now appearing before the courts. As far as we can see the courts are ruling on many cases of mis-selling, without the tax evasion that our cases include. We cannot report on all the cases but will from time to time highlight certain ones. It seems clear from these rulings that the banks have to be exceptionally transparent, in detailing the risks an d have a duty of care to their customers.
PJames I agree with you entirely. I would just like to add, that you don’t need to be a judge to “judge” that when a bank sells a product, which they have illegally used a world renowned company stating that the product was bona fide, and it turns out to be totally untrue! Surely you have simply been fraudulently misled and thereby the transaction must be declared, nul and void. As I say, you don’t need to be a judge to come to that conclusion. But then there seems to be at times some strange minds behind the frock.