Hugo Wiener, a former board chairman of troubled Peruvian lender Banco Agropecuario, has blamed the bank's current and past board heads for the severe deterioration of its credit portfolio, SEMANAeconómica reported.
In an interview with the publication, Wiener said that Richard Hale, who headed the board from September 2016 to November 2017, and Jane Montero, the current board chairman, have "no plan or idea of what to do with the bank" and have therefore compromised Agrobanco's position.
In addition, Wiener said he believes the bank's current problem does not originate in credit approval, but in monitoring, due to the complex collateral scheme of the approved loans. Wiener served as Agrobanco's chairman from October 2011 to June 2014.
In October 2017, Agrobanco filed a criminal complaint against Wiener and several other former board members for fraud and aggravated collusion, among other crimes, due to allegations of granting large loans to three companies. However, Wiener said only one of the three large loans named in the complaint was approved during his management: that to agricultural firm Cultivos Ecológicos.
Wiener further commented about the bank's approval of large credits, saying they were allowed by law to perform any type of operation and prioritize small producers, denying allegations that the bank did not wait for the go-signal of financial regulator SBS in granting the loan.
Earlier, an audit by the Peruvian comptroller's office on credits granted by Agrobanco from January 2013 to December 2016 has revealed irregularities in the said operations. The office has recommended administrative actions against the officials and employees involved in the approval of the loans.
Meanwhile, SBS said the crisis that ultimately led to Agrobanco's troubles began in 2012, in which the firm underwent a period of aggressive loan-taking from foreign creditors that led to an overabundance in credit flow to agricultural companies.
The bank is battling a severely deteriorated loan portfolio after years of what politicians and regulators alike have described as lackluster risk management control.
