Emilio Botín

The CNMV sanctioned Banco Santander for failings in customer relations during the marketing of "Valores Santander", a product sold to numerous investors in 2007. One penalty published in the BOE amounted to 6.9 million euros, while total penalties announced in 2014 reached 16.9 million. Subsequent criminal proceedings alleging fraud in the product's marketing were dismissed for insufficient evidence of criminal deception.

State of the evidence

Documented

Attribution

Institutional responsibility

In 2014, the Cantabria Provincial Court upheld a civil judgment against Banco Santander concerning the sale of preference shares to an elderly couple with limited financial knowledge. The ruling characterised the bank's conduct as "disloyalty" and "bad faith" in offering a complex, risky product and ordered repayment of 50,000 euros.

Attribution

Institutional responsibility

The National Court investigated Emilio Botín and several family members concerning assets linked to HSBC Private Bank Switzerland and unfulfilled tax obligations for certain years. The family regularised its position for a reported amount of approximately 200 million euros. The criminal case was closed in 2012.

State of the evidence

Documented

Attribution

Personally implicated

Following Santander chief executive Alfredo Sáenz's conviction in a separate case, Emilio Botín publicly defended his continuation as head of the bank and described him as an outstanding executive. The Spanish government subsequently pardoned Sáenz, fuelling intense debate over banking governance and use of the pardon power.

State of the evidence

Documented

Attribution

Accused

Role of the person profiled

Protagonist not prosecuted

Emilio Botín, Rodrigo Rato and others were implicated in a criminal complaint concerning, among other matters, Banesto's acquisition of a 42.9% stake in Aguas de Fuensanta from the Rato family. The complainants alleged that the price was excessive and intended to favour Rato. In 2010, the judge dismissed the case, finding no basis for the alleged offences and considering the price justifiable.

Attribution

Personally implicated

Santander customers, particularly through Optimal, were exposed to Bernard Madoff's fraud. In January 2009, Emilio Botín decided that Santander would offer affected retail customers recovery of their initial investment through a securities transaction with a nominal value of approximately 1.38 billion euros, at an estimated pre-tax cost to the bank of approximately 500 million.

State of the evidence

Documented

Attribution

Direct responsibility

Following Lehman Brothers' collapse, customers of private bank Banif incurred losses on capital-guaranteed notes and other structured products linked to Lehman. Santander announced a compensation arrangement based on replacing the assets with preference shares, following the model adopted for retail customers affected by Madoff.

State of the evidence

Documented

Attribution

Institutional responsibility

Emilio Botín and other Santander officials were implicated for years in the so-called "cesiones de crédito" case, involving a financial product and allegations of tax offences and falsification. In 2006, a judge had decided to send Botín and others to trial. In 2007, the Supreme Court confirmed that no trial would take place where neither the public prosecutor nor the directly injured parties sought it and only a private citizen prosecution requested it, a principle that became known as the "Botín doctrine".

Attribution

Accused

Course of the proceedings

1. Formally charged — Formal charge before the current outcome

Emilio Botín was tried alongside former Santander executives over severance payments to José María Amusátegui and Ángel Corcóstegui, amounting to tens of millions of euros. The Supreme Court upheld their acquittal, finding that the payments did not constitute misappropriation or a corporate offence.

Legal status — source text

Acquitted / conviction overturned

Attribution

Accused

Course of the proceedings

1. Formally charged — Formal charge before the current outcome