1. Core Criminal Types

A. Falsification of Corporate Documents - Art. 290 CP
The workhorse for banking cases.

Administradores de hecho o de derecho que falseen las cuentas anuales u otros documentos que deban reflejar la situación jurídica o económica de la entidad de forma idónea para causar perjuicio.

• Subject: de jure or de facto directors of bank.
• Conduct: falsifying annual accounts, IPO prospectus, solvency reports to Banco de España.
• Penalty: 1-3 years prison + fine. Aggravated to 3-6 years if effective damage caused.

This is a delito societario - Art. 290-295 CP.

B. Fraud to Investors - Art. 282 bis CP
Introduced after Bankia. Specific crime of false economic-financial information to capture investors.

Punishes deceptive prospectus in securities issuance. Applies to bank IPO / bond issuance.

C. Disloyal Administration - Art. 252 CP (formerly 295 CP)
Administrators who abuse powers and cause damage to assets administered. Used for reckless lending, granting credits without guarantees to related parties.

D. Market Abuse - Art. 284, 285, 285 bis-ter CP
Insider trading, price manipulation, disclosure of privileged information. For listed banks. Reform 2019 increased penalties to 4 years.

E. Illegal Banking Activity - Art. 288-289 + Ley 10/2014
Exercising banking activity without authorization from Banco de España / ECB is criminal.

F. Money Laundering & Non-compliance - Art. 301-302 CP and Art. 31 bis CP
Bank as legal person liable if it fails to have adequate AML compliance model. Corporate criminal liability was introduced by LO 5/2010 and now covers fraud, corruption, money laundering, and market abuse.

Corporate liability requires: crime committed in name or for account of entity, for direct or indirect benefit, by legal representative or employee due to lack of control. Exoneration if robust compliance program existed before crime - Art. 31 bis 2.

2. Who is Liable?

1. Natural persons: Chairman, CEO, CFO, board members who approved accounts, risk committee. Criminal liability is personal - cannot be delegated.
2. Legal person: The bank itself can be fined, dissolved, or intervened. Also BFA / Bankia entity was charged as legal person.
3. Auditors: Deloitte was investigated in Bankia case for Art. 290 cooperation.
4. Supervisors: Exceptionally, Banco de España directors can be called as witnesses or investigated for failure to prevent, though no conviction to date.

3. Landmark Case Law

1. Caso Banesto - STS 14-04-1997 and STS 29-07-2002 - Mario Conde
Foundation of Spanish banking criminal law.

• President of Banesto, Mario Conde, convicted for estafa and apropiación indebida and false accounting (old Art. 290 equivalent).
• Manipulated inter-group transfers to hide 600,000M pesetas hole.
• Sentence: 10 years initially, confirmed 10 years by Supreme Court, then 20 years in second trial for asset stripping.
• Doctrine: de facto administrator concept established; accounting falsehood is committed even if later corrected in consolidation. Prosecution led by Anticorruption Prosecutor's Office.

2. Caso Bankia / BFA IPO - Audiencia Nacional SAN 13/2020, 29 septiembre 2020 and STS 743/2022

Most important modern case.

• Facts: In 2011 Bankia, formed from 7 cajas, IPOed with prospectus showing €309M profit, when actually it had massive losses. 350,000 retail investors lost savings. Bank needed €19bn bailout.
• Charges: 33 persons including Rodrigo Rato (ex-IMF chief, ex-Bankia Chairman) for fraud to investors (Art. 282 bis), falsifying accounts (Art. 290), market abuse.
• First instance: Juzgado Central instructed, Banco de España inspectors report said accounts did not reflect true image. Audiencia Nacional ordered €800M civil liability bond.
• Acquittal: Audiencia Nacional acquitted all 34 defendants including Rato and Bankia entity for fraud and accounting falsehood. Reasoning:
  • Accounts approved by Banco de España supervisor could not be considered false in criminal sense at that time.
  • No dolo - directors relied on auditor and regulator validation.
  • Third block of judgment held accounts of 2011 could not be considered annual accounts stricto sensu before formulation.
• Supreme Court confirmation: STS 2022 upheld acquittal but established new doctrine: criminal liability requires idoneidad to cause harm, not just accounting irregularity.

This case explains why Spain now charges Art. 282 bis instead of only Art. 290 for IPO cases.

3. Caso CAM - Audiencia Nacional SAN 2/2019
Caja Mediterráneo directors convicted for disloyal administration and falsifying accounts to hide real estate losses. Applied Art. 290: falsification of documents that must reflect economic situation includes quarterly reports to Banco de España.

4. Caso Banco Popular - Ongoing
Investigation into 2017 resolution. Judges examine whether last accounts before Santander purchase concealed €3bn provisions. Applying Bankia doctrine: whether auditor approval excludes criminal intent.

5. Caso Banca Privada d'Andorra (BPA) - Exposure to Spanish jurisdiction
Spanish managers convicted for money laundering Art. 301 for failing to prevent laundering through correspondent banking.

4. Prevention Model - How Banks Avoid Liability

To avoid Art. 31 bis corporate liability, Spanish courts require:

1. Risk map of criminal risks specific to banking
2. Independent compliance officer with access to board
3. Whistleblowing channel
4. Disciplinary system
5. Periodic audit - Banco de España Circular 2/2016

If model exists and effective, bank exempted even if individual director commits crime.

Penalty scale today:

• Natural persons: 6 months to 6 years for fraud/falsification, up to 10 years if market abuse + laundering.
• Legal persons: Fine of 2-5 years quota, disqualification from public subsidies, judicial intervention, dissolution.