By Andrea Hargraves 
Assets seized from former BES directors, such as José María Ricciardi, Pedro Mosqueira do Amaral, Antonio do Soto, João Freixa, Jorge Martins and Rui da Silveira, include pensions, houses and cars.
In a ruling issued on May 2, the Lisbon Court of Appeal finally confirmed the decision to lift the seizure on the assets of the former directors of Banco Espirito Santo – José María Ricciardi, Pedro Mosqueira do Amaral, Antonio do Soto, João Freixa and Jorge. Martins and Rui da Silveira – which was adjudicated at the request of the Credit Recovery Fund for Victims of Commercial Papers ESI and Rio Forte.
The judge of the Lisbon District Judicial Court (Central Civil Court) decided, in a ruling issued on January 18 of this year, to “lift the arrest issued in the case.” But the Credit Recovery Fund was not satisfied and appealed to the Court of Appeal, which in its ruling, seen by Jornal Economico, confirmed the decision of the Court of First Instance (Lisbon District Judicial Court), in final terms.
The newspaper “El Observador” previously published the news.
It was therefore decided, once and for all, to lift the seizure on the assets of José María Ricciardi, Pedro Mosqueira do Amaral, Antonio do Soto, João Freixa, Jorge Martínez and Rui da Silveira, which had been decreed “without prior hearing of the opponents”. party”, through a precautionary measure provided by the Credit Recovery Fund, which was created to compensate investors in the commercial papers of companies of the Espirito Santo Group (GES).
The seized assets include pensions, houses, cars, etc. For example, José María Ricciardi's house in Cascais was confiscated with an asset value of €1,138,342.49. [1,138 milhões de euros]; The part of the house in Cascais that his mother, Vera Espirito Santo Silva Ricciardi, inherited for 422.5 thousand euros; Your optimal shares; Novobanko's pension is 11.5 thousand euros.
Pedro Mosqueira do Amaral had already obtained a “lifetime usufruct of the cotada da Comporta” in Herdade da Comporta, a house in Comporta, and a car had been confiscated.
Antonio Soto, João Freixa, Rui Silveira, and Jorge Martinez witnessed the confiscation of assets such as cars, houses, bank balances, pensions, etc. Once the seizure was implemented, the defendants (former BES officials) filed their objections.
The Judicial Court of Lisbon ruled that “the objections are valid” and ordered “the arrest to be lifted.”
“The FRC – Inq – Papel Comercial ESI and Rio Forte filed an appeal against the ruling of the Judicial Court of Lisbon to the Court of Appeal, which rejected the appeal as unfounded, after it confirmed the appealed ruling,” said a source close to the process.
The Court of Appeal concluded that “both (cumulative) detention conditions were not met.”
“The cumulative requirements for granting a provisional attachment procedure are: a serious possibility of the existence of a credit right of which the applicant (FRC) claims to be the owner (fumus boni iuris) and the existence of a well-founded fear that the respondent [ex-administradores do BES] “It will dissipate its assets, thus rendering useless the beneficial effect of the guilty verdict to be rendered in a main proceeding or enforcement event (periculum in mora).
As one former administrator told Jornal Economico, “After conducting the trial and analyzing the evidence presented by the accused, the court of first instance found that none of the conditions for seizure had been met, namely the serious possibility of confiscation.” The existence of a fiduciary right of subscribers to the commercial papers of ESI and RFI over the former directors of BES, nor, obviously, just fear of losing the capital security of that right.
The two courts concluded that “there is no contractual relationship between the company’s creditors and its directors.”
Now, “as a result of not fulfilling the two (cumulative) seizure conditions, the previously issued seizure had to be lifted.” In light of the above, the appeal is considered baseless and the contested decision is upheld.” The ruling was stated in the Lisbon Court of Appeal.
What does the Credit Recovery Fund demand for BES victims?
The Credit Recovery Fund for those affected by GES commercial papers sold to BES branches sought, in a precautionary measure, to order “the seizure of the assets specified in the initial application.” That is, he “requested the issuance of a decree of forfeiture of certain assets which he identified as belonging to the defendants,” alleging that the latter, “by their wrongful and irresponsible acts and omissions, caused damages to INQPC (Investors in Commercial Paper).” , which invested in commercial papers of ESI (Espírito Santo International) and RFI (Rio Forte Investments), resulting in non-payment of the credits arising from these investments, neither on the respective maturity dates nor to date.”
“FRC – Inq – Papel Comercial ESI e Rio Forte” invoked the fact that credit held by non-qualified investors (INQPC) had in the meantime been transferred to the applicant (FRC), “a total of €561,255,354.52 [561,2 milhões de euros]”, to justify the legality of the procedure.
It should be remembered that the Credit Recovery Fund for BES Victims, managed by Patrice, was created to obtain compensation from investors in corporate commercial papers of the Espirito Santo Group (GES) for orders worth more than 400 million euros.
The FCR noted, in the precautionary action, that “the assets of ESI and RFI were insufficient to compensate INQPC for investments in commercial paper issued by these two companies”; “ESI and RFI were declared bankrupt in 2014, as well as BES in 2016, with the license to carry out credit institution activities revoked by the European Central Bank.”
The FCR also justified the attachment request by the fact that “the defendants had already mortgaged or disposed of the assets” and because they had “a well-founded fear that the inherent delay in processing the legal action” would “jeopardize the security of the assets.”
After the arrest was carried out, the former directors of BES (the accused) had the opportunity to submit their objections.
The document stated: “All the defendants ended up requesting the lifting of the detention and requested the submission of documentary evidence, testimonies and partisan evidence.”
The FCR exercised its right to take contravening action, “having requested a response to the documents contained in the objections, under the terms and reasons stated therein and which are now deemed to be superseded, merely for the convenience and speed of presentation,” as follows: In the document.
To date, the FRC has lost all civil actions already decided against former directors of BES in which it qualified as assignor of potential credits from commercial paper subscribers to ESI and RFI.
“The main procedure to which this precautionary measure was attached began on March 29, 2019,” and then “was ruled to be abandoned, due to the Reconstruction Council’s negligence in promoting its conditions,” a source linked to the operation revealed.
This decision in the main proceedings has not yet become final, as it is awaiting appeal.
The main lawsuit filed by the Fund against 59 defendants amounts to €514,202,198.35. [514,2 milhões de euros].
Our sources also reveal that the service contract with the law firm sponsoring the FRC (PARES) includes a payment of three million euros over six years, which has not yet been confirmed.
The management of the Credit Recovery Fund was created at the request of Prime Minister António Costa to compensate BES victims, “and was entrusted to Patris – SCFTC, owned by Real Vida Seguros, and GNB Gestão de Activos SGPS”, Novobanco after its appointment as custodian of the securities of the Fund.
“As can be seen from reading the appellant’s management regulations, €146,116,000.00 has already been mobilized for this purpose. [146,1 milhões de euros] Another €155,897,500.00 was promised [155,9 milhões]“, according to the counter-allegations of one of the former BES directors, to which Jornal Economico was able to access.
The same document says that “all of this” was done “in real public financing of litigation between private parties, with the Federal Reserve counterparty waiving all rights and withdrawing all orders in relation to commercial paper issued by ESI and Rio Forte, which have as counterparties Novobanco, Best, Novo Banco Açores (formerly BAC), BdP, CMVM, Resolution Fund, the State, including members of any constitutional governments, any public bodies, among many others.”
The legal text of a director's defense notes that the Fed has given up any rights in Best and Novo Banco Açores (formerly BAC), “much like the respective commercial paper providers such as BES, as well as in BdP and Novobanco.” , responsible for the transfer, contrary to NIC Standard (IAS) 37, of the reputational allowance recorded in the accounts of BES for the first half of 2014, which was created with the aim of defending the reputation of BES, as part of the part of the business mentioned paper which, ultimately, will ensure For non-qualified investors, full repayment of their investments is required.