Former CGD Secretary-General João Dias Garcia said today that the presence of administrators at meetings of the bank's credit councils automatically canceled the binding nature of negative opinions.
"Risk advice was binding on most decision-making bodies, but when a decision-making body was involved in a decision-making body, it was not binding," said João Dias Garcia during the hearing at the second parliamentary inquiry committee on the management and recapitalization of CGD , in the Assembly of the Republic, in Lisbon, in response to PSD deputy Duarte Marques.
João Dias Garcia's statement is based on a 2003 CGD service order, which states that "with the exception of levels of competence that include an administrator, negative or conditioned risk opinions become binding for the decision-making request. "
Therefore, "whenever there was an administrator, it was not binding", clarified the former head of CGD.
"As the credit councils consisting of three or four directors at least, it is clear that" credit and extended credit councils "were not required to follow the risk opinion and could deliberate differently.
João Dias Garcia said that the reasoning that supported the approval of credit concessions was "in the opinions that were part of the credit process," and not in the opinion of risk.
He also explained that the risk opinion and the credit proposal had the same "legal nature", that is, the same value in terms of support for decision-making.
"It was created the idea that risk opinion was an opinion that was binding, that when it was exceeded would have to be amply justified by credit and extended credit boards, and it is not so," he said.
Later, in response to MP Carlos Pereira, who asked if this circumstance was not "a huge trapdoor" to allow everything to be approved by CGD administrators, João Dias Garcia denied it.
"There are, in general, no decisions that contradict the risk opinion," he said.