"Fraud disappoint law or the law?

As everyone knows, New Rumasa several companies are in default and benefiting from the bankruptcy law. Following this raises several questions, especially where is the money from investors who trusted emissions pay payrolls? and what are the differences between Rumasa and New Rumasa?

Answering the second question first, we can say that was a holding Rumasa, extremely sophisticated in which companies belonging to lend money to each other in highly risky operation. This holding structure for these operations was good on the one hand, since these operations are reflected in the accounts of all group companies in one way or another, but on the other hand was bad, since the problems that arose in some branch of the business framework affecting the rest of the holding. New Rumasa, however, is a group of independent companies operating under one brand, so that the operations we've done regency are not reflected in the accounts of all companies grouped under the mark, causing that lose track of the money that comes into play in these operations.

With regard to the promissory notes, is a form of financing that companies can use and requires no intervention by financial institutions and therefore can not accurately assess risks, and information leaflets in the CNMV, so the company is not required nothing more than to repay debt on time. It is for these promissory notes as it seeks to New Rumasa accused of fraud, although the authorities warned of the risk of the operation until seven times, so the investment was fully aware of the risks of the operation, to the point that at some point the CNMV requires the issuer to make the issue through financial intermediaries. It is as if a person drinks a bottle of bleach and the manufacturer is to blame for poisoning.

In conclusion, to avoid giving more cases of this kind should be encouraged to perceive that any funding, either from individuals and other companies, an operator must intervene financial, assessing the risk and viability of operation, as well as companies belonging to the same group, that the operators involved is outside the group. In this way no employer may rely on a legal vacuum when it comes to raising capital to undertake some activity, no matter how safe or crazy that is. Thus, if the operation is out to ruin serious mismanagement of employer or a bad risk measurement operator and therefore the responsibility is clearly attributable to one person.