Ulrich also said that, between 2007 and 2008, almost 25% of the volume of real estate credit was granted by BPI to customers who “came from other banks”.
“If this isn’t competition, if this isn’t competition, what is it?”he asked, addressing the deputies.
On more than one occasion, the non-executive president of BPI rejected that the exchange of information between banks constituted a cartel or an anti-competitive practice.
“It’s not a scandal, it’s not a cartel, the period up to 2010 was the most competitive in real estate credit activity in Portugal”he insisted, considering that the AdC “did not show that BPI harmed customers”. “In fact, they were treated very well”he further said.
Fernando Ulrich, who at the time of the events was executive president of BPI, admitted that he had authorized the exchange of information between the bank and competitors, as it was “a transparent process, always about past hiring, and never about what the bank was going to do in the future”.
He added that “telling Friday what will be done on Monday is useless. Exchanging information about what is being done at the moment is not a problem nor does it cause distortion, as this information is available at the branch and on the bank’s website”.
Faced with the insistence of the PSD, PS and Chega deputies, the officer admitted that the rules of compliance They are currently more restricted since, in 2015, the largest national banks came under the purview of European banking supervision.
“Today supervision is more demanding, there are more rules”he explained.
At the beginning of the session, Fernando Ulrich refused to respond to statements made by Chega deputy, Francisco Gomes, when he declared that the banks were “in collusion” to “falsify competition” in the case of the ‘banking cartel’.
“I don’t have time to answer you, and I don’t agree with anything that was said”he stated.
The Budget, Finance and Public Administration Committee approved, in September 2025, a request from Chega to hear all banking institutions involved in the so-called banking cartel, but the hearings only began last Tuesday, with those responsible for Banco Montepio, Crédito Agrícola and Unión de Créditos Inmobiliários.
After Banco BPI, those responsible for Caixa Geral de Depósitos, Banco Comercial Português, Santander Totta and Abanca, among others, will be heard.
In addition to the banks, the Portuguese Banking Association (APB), the National Association of Authorized Credit Intermediaries (ANICA), the AdC and the Bank of Portugal will also be called.
The so-called ‘banking cartel’ dates back to September 2024, when the Competition Court confirmed the fines of 225 million euros imposed by the AdC on 11 banks, ruling that it was proven that, between 2002 and 2013, there was “collusion” to exchange information about credits and that they “aligned commercial practices” distorting competition.
The banks appealed and the Court of Appeal declared the administrative offense time-barred, counting the time in which matters were being analyzed by European Justice. Appeals to the Constitutional Court were also rejected. In other words, the fines were definitively annulled.
In July, in parliament, the president of the AdC said that the Court did not absolve the banks of infractions and regarding the prescription of fines he said that there is “a relevant contradiction” in the jurisprudence of the Relationship.
However, he added that in the future this problem will not arise in new processes as the 2022 amendment to the Competition Law makes it clear that the prescription will be suspended while there is a judicial appeal.
Asked whether an interpretative law would be important to clarify that processes that have already been initiated are suspended while they are considered at the Court of Justice of the European Union, the president of the AdC said that this is up to parliament as a legislator.
The banks that saw their fines annulled are CGD (82 million euros), BCP (60 million), Santander (35.65 million), BPI (30 million), Banco Montepio (13 million euros), BBVA (2.5 million), BES (700 thousand), BIC (500 thousand), Crédito Agrícola (350 thousand), UCI (150 thousand). Barclays was also convicted, but without having to pay a fine for reporting the case to Cade.
Leave a Reply