20 Jun 2020 18:40:
Sorry not good enough if a system allows Banks to accept deposits from any source without proof that all due checks and safeguards and strict adherence to existing LEY 57/68 Bank Guarantee law were complied with FROM THE OUTSET?
For any offplan development all monies had to be placed into recognisable developer SECURE SPECIAL accounts that were fully safeguarded with INALIENSBLE RIGHTS no less. It was for the Bank to ensure that any monies deposited into their safe keeping were easily identifiable and that legal BGs issued accordingly in that process. They have no right to retain monies deposited without their own proof of adherence to this law.
That was the purpose of good BG law that has been contested and won ( in the majority of cases) during the past 15 years and beyond.
Banks have been doing their level best to contest this law using all manner of manipulative ploys however, proliferating appeals and playing the system of delays ..... and are still fighting tooth and nail on some aspects of this law as we speak.
Only when justice prevails in this regard will it ever be safe to suggest that Banks can be trusted to behave with all due compliance as per their mission statements. Progress has been made but it has resulted in lengthy and costly litigation....it's taken years to get the Supreme Court to rule in favour of innocent purchasers and thereby set legal doctrine to make Banks accountable for return of deposited monies, and where applicable accountable for interest and costs.
The problem now however may rest with those who delayed litigation for all manner of reasons, as there is a time limit of fifteen years applicable to this law.... ( many may have been given false information or suggestions made that they were fighting a lost cause, or they have been denied the ability to find relevant financial data, etc).
In other words you have to have started litigation within 15 years of placing deposit. Those who are sadly outside this limit will have to seek other means, but this is where knowledge and case law and willingness to proceed with litigation becomes dependent on trusted law firms to correctly assess the "likelihood " of success, dependent again presumably on all manner of circumstance.
But this instance should not let those who bring the legal profession into disrepute off the hook, since again there should be a system in place to protect. For instance when the Spanish authorities closed down the firm, did they immediately seize all client data to act as protection going forward? Had they ensured that legal liability was compulsory and complied with?
So many questions I'm afraid and presumably only those good law firms willing to thoroughly investigate the circumstance and assess the detail from a realistic perspective can educate us all in this regard.
Its not in anyone's interest to jump to conclusions until all the facts are known. Hopefully someone who has full knowledge of these cases can provide greater clarity and transparency.
P.s. In some instances original conveyancing lawyers who appeared to have had a potential conflict of interests (I.e. they were not independent ) have been "encouraged" to provide financial information necessary to proceed with litigation against the Banks by the Bar Associations but this has been dependent upon good experienced law firms who "took over" the case to request this, ....the premise being that if the original conveyancing lawyer did not comply with this request, they would presumably be at risk of litigation or fines themselves or in the worst case taken off accreditation lists.... But again it depends upon a good trusted independent law firm intent on protecting clients best interests to use their experience in this regard.
This message was last edited by ads on 20/06/2020.
This message was last edited by ads on 21/06/2020.
Thread:
ELS ex clients trying to get access to papers/documents
--------------------------------------