Central Bank

Morales, it may be an example simple. Suppose, dear reader, that you want to withdraw your money from a bank account and build two imaginary scenarios. The first is that the cashier gives you your money, you takes it and makes a little proper use of. Then come two deputies and a bank exempleado and culpabilizan to the cashier by having delivered the money that caused some damage (not accusing you but the cashier). In the second scenario, the cashier, prior to give what is theirs, asking what will do with him. You confesses his evil intentions. To listen to them, he says it will not give you your money.

You are surprised and weapon a mess claiming so is yours. Dear reader, do think you that either of the two scenarios make sense?. Please note that the cashier is obliged to deliver to you what is yours and the deputies and the exempleado of the Bank are not blaming the cashier or to the President of the Bank of the acts you committed well, what happened in the Central Bank with the withdrawal of funds in October 2003 has much to do with these scenarios. The holder the account of the Government is the Chancellor of the Exchequer, i.e. is the person authorized by law to withdraw money from the State. Your cashier is the Central Bank.

Only the Minister of finance may order the withdrawal of funds, not so the President of the Central Bank who, in addition, not may oppose requested withdrawals as long as they are legal. Its legality is verified by several hierarchical officials before drawing up the respective order and give effect to the withdrawal of funds. It is an administrative procedure whose course is properly normed. It is easy to understand, isn’t it?. Most curious in the complainants of yore is that they accuse the President of the Central Bank’s withdrawal of funds as if it had the authority to dispose of those resources and not to the account holder who would have to ask him that he made with them. By Dr.

This entry was posted in News. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.