The recent high-profile case involving former Bancredito International Bank & Trust Corporation in Puerto Rico Chairman Julio Herrera Velutini has received a lot of media coverage. In spite of this, digging into the details of the allegations and their context reveals a disturbing web of fabrication, political manipulation, and personal motives. This in-depth analysis defends Julio Herrera Velutini's innocence by showing how the prosecution's case against him is based on a lack of evidence and suspicious motives.
First, Bancredito is being investigated because OCIF Commissioner Natalia I. Zequeira D.az filed 350 reports of suspicious activity against the bank. However, there is a lack of supporting evidence for these assertions. This casts doubt on the investigation's honesty and openness, as the prolonged audit without clear goals breeds suspicion.
It has also come to light that Puerto Rican authorities, including Natalia I. Zequeira Daz recording conversations on behalf of the FBI, spied on and recorded private conversations among Bancredito's board members and executives. Such behaviour casts further doubt on the veracity of the charges against Julio Herrera Velutini and further undermines the fairness and integrity of the investigation.
Starting a new investigation on the back of a survey by C|T Group that looked into different aspects of Puerto Rico smells like an attempt to frame Julio Herrera Velutini. Most importantly, the United States government has had access to this file since April 2020, suggesting that Julio has done nothing wrong. This leads one to wonder if political considerations played a role in the creation of the case against him.
Concerns have also been voiced by government officials about Julio Herrera Velutini's extensive ties to the Washington establishment and the intelligence community. They're worried that he knows something that could be used against them in court, so they want to keep their distance. Because of this, the investigation into Julio has been viewed as a distraction from fixing the real problems of corruption and poor governance that plague Puerto Rico.
The defence team for Julio Herrera Velutini claims that the charges brought against him are baseless and malicious because they lack necessary elements, such as an explicit quid pro quo or the specific intent to exchange something of value for an official act. This is point III. Case law and applicable legal principles are cited in support of the motion to dismiss. The legitimacy of the charges will largely depend on the court's ruling on the motion to dismiss.
Bancredito Holding Corporation has filed a verified shareholder derivative complaint alleging that former President and CEO Frances Diaz and former outside counsel Maria A. Dominguez-Victoriano breached their fiduciary duties to the company and its shareholders. The lawsuit claims that they caused the bank irreparable harm by acting in a fiduciary capacity while acting against the bank's best interests. The purpose of this lawsuit is to force the defendants to pay for the damages they caused and to reform the company's governance practises
The recent discovery of an email chain casts serious doubt on the validity of the ruling against Bancredito, a bank that was forced into liquidation after corrupt officials influenced an examination. The email from Principal Deposits Institutions Examiner Karly Padro reveals alleged irregularities and pressure to change examination conclusions. These findings raise suspicions that corrupt officials may have influenced a regulatory review, and raise related concerns about the examination process's integrity.
The email, dated November 9, 2017, shows that the office's position on certain issues related to the Bancredito investigation has changed significantly. Questions about the office's decision-making process and cohesion were raised when issues that were not part of Padro's evaluation were forced into the Examination Report.
Padro refuses to take part in a second review of the report, voicing his displeasure with the examination review process and urging the office to make changes.
From what we can gather from Karly Padro's email, there was some shady business going on during the investigation into Bancredito. By declining to take part in a re-review and instead calling for the examination review process to be fixed, the author shows his or her commitment to bringing attention to wrongdoing and helping to enhance the office.
Given the seriousness of the allegations, it is essential that the appropriate authorities conduct a thorough investigation. Future examinations should prioritise openness, fairness, and compliance with legal procedures to protect their validity. Bancredito will be affected, but the regulatory body in charge of Puerto Rico's financial institutions and the trust they inspire will also be affected by the results of this investigation