Three former heads of Idea⁢ Bank met in the courtroom. This was due to a trial to determine the obligation of the institution’s managers and cooperating companies for⁣ the distribution⁢ of GetBack⁤ bonds and Trigon Profit funds⁤ associated with ⁣GetBack. Two former bank presidents are defendants in‌ the case. The‍ vice president, who served as acting president immediately before resolution, ‍i.e., compulsory ​restructuring, appeared as a witness.This former president of PKO‌ BP and first vice president of NBP signed a notification of a crime committed by several rank-and-file bank employees and several members of the management team, who are among the ‍16 defendants in the managers’⁣ trial.

The⁢ court revealed the testimony‍ that the last head of Idea Bank gave during the preparatory proceedings, allowing us to know what irregularities he accused those who were on the board before him of.

He accused ⁣President Jarosław⁤ Augustyniak and Dariusz M., a ⁣member of the​ management board responsible for sales, of abusing ⁤their powers by arranging the sales process in a way that exposed the bank to liability for damages. In response to a question from​ attorney Maciej Górczak,the defender of Tobiasz B., the second of the accused presidents of ⁤idea Bank, the‌ witness stated ⁢that the launch of GetBack bond sales took place without⁤ the⁣ knowledge of the other members of the ​management board and supervisory board, and​ without compliance opinions. At the very end of the court‌ session, Jarosław Augustyniak challenged this.He pointed out that the management board, the chairman of the supervisory board, and ⁢Izabela Lubczyńska, a member of​ the board, received daily sales reports. These did not contain the names of specific products, but the monthly reports did.

⁣ – In the​ minutes​ after the KNF (Polish Financial Supervision Authority) ⁤inspection, ⁤there is a note that‌ the supervisory board ‌knew about ⁢the distribution of GetBack bonds because it received this report – Jarosław Augustyniak noted.

His ‍defender asked the witness earlier on what⁣ basis⁣ he determined that the bond sales process took place⁢ without⁢ the knowledge of members ⁢of the management board other ⁤than Jarosław Augustyniak and Dariusz M.

‍ – Based on materials attached to the application for the commission of a‍ crime – replied the man who was once the head of PKO BP.

A moment later, he admitted that he had not seen the source documents on which the⁤ notification of the‌ commission of a crime was ‍based. Bogumił Zygmont, the attorney for Dariusz M.,delved into the topic of the notification. ⁤It turned out that when the witness became ⁣the head of Idea Bank,he was subordinate to,among others,the legal department,whose head was the currently accused Piotr L.

‌ – Did you talk to Piotr L. about the notification? – asked Dariusz M.’s defender.

⁤ – ⁢I don’t remember – replied the witness.

​ – Who presented this​ topic to the management board? – was ‍another question‌ to which the witness also did not provide any specific answer.

Michał hajduk, the second of Dariusz M.’s attorneys, asked whether Leszek Czarnecki knew ​about or initiated the notifications of the commission of a crime.

– From my personal perspective, he ⁣knew as‌ they were presented to the supervisory board and the management board, and as for initiating them, I don’t⁤ know because the ‌audit process‍ was already underway when ‍I started ⁢working ⁣– replied the witness.

Complaints Only After⁤ the Fall

In the context of the accusation of​ exposing the bank to liability for damages as an inevitable result of participating in the ⁣distribution of GetBack bonds,the witness was unable to answer the question of Jarosław Augustyniak’s defender as to whether the ⁢complaints that ⁣came in connection with the sale of bonds concerned the period when Jarosław​ Augustyniak was the president. answering a question from ⁤the second ⁤of Jarosław Augustyniak’s defenders, he admitted at the same time that the complaints were not a important ⁢problem until GetBack’s bankruptcy.

– During my term,i.e.,⁤ until the end of September 2017, there were no complaints‍ regarding⁢ GetBack bonds – Jarosław Augustyniak emphasized at the end of the day.

Asked twice by the defenders of Jarosław Augustyniak and Dariusz M. about the sale of GetBack bonds by Getin Noble Bank in 2012-18, the witness replied that he ⁢did not know about it. Meanwhile, he was the vice president there from October 2016 to December 2018.

– The sale of bonds was not within ‌the​ scope of my duties – the witness explained in response to Michał Hajduk’s question.

In the context of Getin Noble Bank’s connections with GetBack, Jarosław Augustyniak mentioned that GetBack was founded by the president‌ and vice president of⁤ Getin ‍Noble Bank, and the bank actively distributed bonds until ‌the end of 2016. GetBack also managed investment funds ⁣related​ to the bank “on a large scale.”

– So it’s hard to say that the vice president knew nothing about it – said Jarosław Augustyniak.

He also‌ recalled that when the distribution of bonds⁢ went to Noble Securities, the current⁣ witness, who reported him to the prosecutor’s office, was a‍ member of the supervisory board ​of the ​brokerage house.

‍ – I have been a member of supervisory boards several times, ⁣and there is⁢ no way that a ⁢member of the supervisory board ⁣does not know what is happening in the company – ⁣assured the currently accused president of Idea Bank.

GetBack’s Lawyer Asks ‌About Sellers

in the⁢ notification addressed to the law enforcement authorities, the last⁤ head of Idea⁤ Bank had‌ reservations towards jarosław Augustyniak regarding entering into an agreement with⁢ Konrad Kąkolewski, the ⁣president of GetBack, and Piotr Osiecki, the president of Altus TFI, when establishing an account related to the sale of EGB Investments to GetBack by Altus funds. In the⁣ preparatory proceedings, he claimed that Jarosław Augustyniak exerted pressure on the sales network employees regarding the sale of GetBack bonds so that the debt collector could use the money obtained in this way ​to purchase‍ EGB Investments.

In this context,​ in the courtroom, the lawyer of Capita (the current name of GetBack) asked the last head of Idea Bank who the most significant participants of the Altus funds ⁤involved in the transaction were.

– I wouldn’t want to speculate ‍now – replied the banker.

He was unable to answer the question of whether analyses ​were created at Idea ⁤Bank regarding who was the actual beneficiary of these funds. Marita⁤ grodzka-Dubois,defending Maciej G., one of the sales directors of ⁢idea Bank, asked about this.

In the preparatory ‍proceedings, ​the last head of‍ Idea bank claimed⁤ that Idea Bank had the right to provide marketing data about bonds, but​ not to sell them. If it‍ had only conducted marketing activities, it would not have been possible to ⁣raise so​ much money in such a short time.

The notification⁢ to the ‍prosecutor’s ⁤office submitted by ⁤the last head⁢ of Idea Bank also concerned exceeding powers in connection with granting a ⁣discount of approximately PLN 500,000 to‌ Mia, a ⁣company associated with polski‌ Dom Maklerski. Dariusz M.and Aneta Skrodzka-Książek,a member of the management board responsible for compliance (no charges),were said to have exceeded their powers.

Jarosław Augustyniak,Konrad Kąkolewski,and Piotr Osiecki,despite being⁤ charged,agree to the publication of their full personal data.