BBVA reveals how its investigation on Villarejo was done to justify that it did not obstruct justice
BBVA He has been forced to send a statement to clarify the controversy generated through some media that recalled that the experts of the PwC audit had indicated in the National Court that nine out of ten of the lines of investigation proposed to the bank had been rejected, such as that of the former president of Sacyr, Luis del Rivero.
The doubts about BBVA's collaboration with justice are great, and they have been expressed in the open face even by important judges of the National Court such as Eloy Velasco. That is why the bank has dropped a lot of criticism after the words of one of the PwC experts in judicial headquarters.
To demonstrate that the rejection of the lines of investigation was due to simple operational need, BBVA has had to explain in a new statement how its famous -and for months, ultra-secret-report ‘forensic’ worked.
As indicated by the bank chaired by Carlos Torres and with Onur Genç as CEO, «PwC has obtained this data as a specialized company, using the forensic methodology accepted in these cases: device cloning, obtaining a code hash which ensures the unmodifiability of the data, analysis of the data in your laboratory, among others ».
«The methodology consists of sinning by excess, not by default»
The statement says that keyword selection is made so that "no relevant email or file is left out." However, there are many terms that give rise to irrelevant or false positive results. In other words, "the methodology consists of sinning in excess, not by default," says BBVA.
As he explains, it is normal for keyword searches to produce false positives. The bank gives the example of its branch in Villarejo de Salvanés (Madrid), which appears continuously having the same name as the former commissioner José Villarejo.
To clarify this, word combinations are used: for example, Villarejo without Salvanés, etc.
The trigger that only 10% of the research lines have been followed would be this difficulty in searches. As BBVA indicates, first the clearly irrelevant results are discarded, then the selected ones are looked at and the ones that are really worth it are taken. This review was done by PwC but the lawyers of Garrigues They had the final word.