Banco BPI will analyse “in detail” the ruling of the Competition Court, which sentenced it to a fine of 30 million euros, and then “intends to exercise its right of defence” in the process, including the appeal.
The Competition, Regulation and Supervision Tribunal (TCRS) on Friday upheld the €225 million fines imposed by the Competition Authority (AdC) on banks involved in the so-called “banking cartel” and found that they had failed to show critical thinking towards conduct that was detrimental to consumers.
“This ruling, which is a first instance ruling, upheld the fine of 30 million euros that the AdC had imposed on BPI,” the bank said in a statement sent to the Securities Market Commission (CMVM).
“Banking cartel”. The Competition Court condemns the banks and considers the “collusion” that occurred in the sector to be “highly serious”
BPI will “analyze in detail the content of the TCRS judgment, after which it intends to exercise its rights of defense in this process, including by filing an appeal before the Lisbon Court of Appeal.”
BPI Bank “reiterates its belief that no competition laws have been infringed and no harm has been caused to customers,” the institution said.
Judge Mariana Gomes Machado, reading the summary of the sentence of the case, considered that “the infringement is very serious, since the target companies reduced competition [no mercado de crédito] through concerted practice.”
The court confirmed the fines imposed in 2019 and ordered CGD to pay €82 million, BCP €60 million, Santander Totta €35.65 million, BPI €30 million, Montepio €13 million, BBVA €2.5 million, BES €700,000, Banco BIC (for acts carried out by BPN) €500,000, Caixa Central de Crédito Agrícola €350,000 and Unión de Créditos Inmobiliarios €150,000.
Barclays, which denounced the practice and filed the leniency application, was not required to pay a fine and only received a warning.
The judge said the court’s main concern was that the practice of price collusion between banks was not repeated and that at trial, with the exception of Barclays, none of the banks had demonstrated any critical thinking or any effectively remedial conduct (with the exception of codes of conduct).
The judge considered that there was a “homogeneous degree of behaviour” by the banks in this collusion and that the scope of the collusion was made clear in the example that “the defendant CGD received information from Montepio to which it added its data and sent to BPI”.
Source: Observadora
