Loose ends

Two years later, subsequent to the bank interventions that affected 14 private institutions, Public Prosecutor Office maintains investigations open, these concern the public funds that ended up at some of those organisms and were utilized in shady financial operations, this is included among the accusations held by the Public Ministry against some bankers.

According to the Attorney General Office, "The financial crash did not only affect the clients, depositors, creditors, investors and the Venezuelan Financial System, but mainly the Venezuelan State one way or the other. That is why investigations into "the public patrimony" remain open. Nevertheless, they clarify that the set of elements needed to finish the discovery stage is still incomplete: They refer to "those facts that allow to determine accurately the sum of money used in such operations whose source was from public institutions," expresses the agency in one of the case files concerning the investigations against executive directors of Banco Real (Real Bank).

Remember that the economic losses caused to the Nation amounted to USD 581 million and that most funds came from State agencies.

One of the most emblematic cases is the one attributed to the banking trust owned by businessman Pedro Torres Ciliberto, whose name was in people's mouth as a banker with strong links with the Government and high-ranking government officers.

Torres Ciliberto, nowadays in exile, as many other emerging bankers who "fell from grace" at the end of 2009, showed openly his support to the President Hugo Chávez's Administration. He also appeared in celebrations in company with senior government officers and made his name as well as other outstanding figures, because of a wave of buy of financial institutions and insurance companies in alignment with the new times: "Chávez and I share the same ideas and principles. I back President Chávez," he stated to journalist Juan Carlos Zapata while he closed the deal of buying Seguros La Previsora, Banco Real and Central Bank. That way, last names such as Fernández, Torres Ciliberto, Cedeño, Tirado, Chacón became big names in the banking and insurance environment.

USD 104 million missing

From the three accusations that the Attorney General Office holds against directives of Banco Real, including Torres Ciliberto, in addition to Arné Chacón Escamillo - brother of ex Minister Jesse Chacón- there is an accusation at the 28 Trial Court presided over by Judge Susana Barreiros concerning a supposed simulated buy of securities whose funds came from Banfoandes.

As appears from the case file, the operation took place on May 27, 2009, when Banco Real had a new manager: Pedro Miguel Torres Picón, who happens to be son of Pedro Torres Ciliberto.

By that time, Banco Real made a transference for a total amount of USD 104 million from the bank account held at the Central Bank of Venezuela (BCV) on behalf of Iverunión Casa de Bolsa and another on behalf of Banco Canarias (Canarias Bank) -both institutions have been under requisitioned and under investigation- in order to purchase securities.

Now, the money used for such operation by Banco Real was obtained through a wire transfer that same day, May 27, from Baninvest, also property of businessman Pedro Torres Ciliberto.

A month after this operation, on July 1, a delivery of funds from Bancoandes was recorded, amounting to the same sum, that is, USD 104 million. That same day, Banco Real transferred the same amount of money to Baninvest, operation which to the Attorney General Office leaves in evidence that at the end of the day, all, the supposed securities were paid through funds placed by Banfoandes.

Ghostly securities

The Attorney General Office claims that the use of these funds did not only concern the payment of securities but also simulated buy of securities. According to the investigators "there exist no record which provides evidence on the link between the securities supposedly acquired by Banco Real with this operation." This means that according to the accusation, it was possible through that scheme to withdraw that sum of money from Banco Real, without any note having entered into its patrimony.

It is worthwhile pointing out that while the procurement of titles was nonexistent, the operation was recorded in the bank accounts.

According to the accusation, the way in which they justified the withdrawal amounting to USD 104 million from the accounting standpoint, "as some kind of hoax" was through a new business operation conducted by Banco Real. This time the adventure concerns the buy of Seguros Premier CA, by a company that belongs to the same business group owned by Pedro Torres Ciliberto, with the presumed securities as method of payment.

Seguros Premier

In order to perform such new financial operation, the group led by Pedro Torres Ciliberto used another related company named Unión Chelsea International Financial Corporation de Venezuela CA, whose owner was Organización TPF SA and stockholders were Pedro Torres Picón and his wife Blanca Cecilia Picón de Torres.

This way, the deal between Seguros Premier and Chelsea Financial Company is made 15 days after the first operation: on June 12, 2009. Chelesea acquires 96% of the shares from Seguros Premier by making a payment amounting to USD35,832,400.

As for the last stage for perpetrating the criminal offences aimed at the appropriation of USD 104 million, as alleged by the Attorney General Office, on September 25, two months later, Banco Real buys Seguros Premier Company from Unión Chelsea for an amount of USD 107,734,000.00. But this operation is paid with the securities that had been presumably acquired by InverUnión Casa de Bolsa and Banco Canarias. Sufh final amount corresponded to the securities worth USD 104 million, plus the yield of the securities. For the Attorney General Office, the subsequent sale price which Banco Real is to pay to Chelesea -which amounts to USD 107 million set in just two months, that is to say an additional sum of USD 70 million in order to acquire the same number of shares, "seemed unreasonable, even more when it concerned the same buyers and sellers as those companies shared the same links." Noteworthy, at that time, both the Insurance Superintendence and the Superintendence of Banks objected such operation.

folivares@eluniversal.com

twitter@folivares10

Translated by Adrián Valera Villani