By: Gašper Blažič
“The Specialised State Prosecutor’s Office withdrew the indictment against lawyer Miro Senica and three co-defendants for abuse of power and money laundering in connection with the purchase of Delamaris shares, which is why today’s hearing was cancelled,” the Celje District Court said to STA on November 23rd, 2021. As the Trenta case is now ongoing in the same court, comparisons with other legal proceedings become even more intriguing.
The prosecutors in the Trenta case are Boštjan Valenčič (who holds a doctorate in law) and Luka Moljk, the deputy head of the Specialised State Prosecutor’s Office, which also participated in the trials of Miro Senica and Hilda Tovšak concerning the Bukežijan estate and the collusion between Vegrad and Delamaris. Interestingly, the Trenta case has turned into a massive legal process, expected to drag on until the end of this year, while the media coverage of the (non-)trial of Senica is so sparse that we hardly even learn the name of the prosecutor who led the case. Only from certain records do we discover that it was Stanislav Pintar. Curiously, in 2018 Pintar was employed at the Specialised State Prosecutor’s Office despite having already founded his own (international) legal consultancy. The Law on the State Prosecutor’s Office clearly states that a state prosecutor cannot perform functions or activities incompatible with the role of a state prosecutor as outlined by the constitution or law.
Furthermore, we know that at that time, the head of the Specialised State Prosecutor’s Office was Harij Furlan, who has been the president of the State Prosecutor’s Council since last December. His deputy is the former General State Prosecutor, Zvonko Fišer. In a cynical sense, one could say: “All our people.”
Miro Senica, the two-legged scandal
Both Miro Senica and his partner (if they are still together), Katarina Kresal, a former Minister of the Interior and ex-leader of the Liberal Democracy of Slovenia (LDS), were seen as a “scandal on two legs”. They were also embroiled in the infamous Baričevič affair, which had a chilling aspect, revealing the existence of two parallel legal systems in Slovenia: one for ordinary citizens and another for the select elite from the transition era. Even back when four wild bullmastiffs attacked and almost killed Stanislav Meglič, it became clear that the dogs’ owner, the now-deceased Zora Roter, was incapable of controlling even one dog, let alone four. Police shot one dog on the spot, while the remaining three were supposed to be euthanised later. However, they were not; thanks to connections with powerful individuals, the dogs were returned to a new owner, Saša Baričevič, the then-owner of the Barsos clinic and a close friend of Senica. When the three bullmastiffs later fatally attacked Baričevič, the real reason for the attack on Meglič surfaced – these dogs had been sexually abused. However, the case never reached a conclusion because the key evidence – footage from cameras monitoring Baričevič’s home – mysteriously disappeared, much like the footage from 2014 that could have proven who murdered the director of the Chemistry Institute, Janko Jamnik.
Nevertheless, Senica later found himself in the dock, albeit for entirely different reasons. He was, in fact, the real owner of the vast Bužekijan estate in Slovenian Istria, although the official owner was Edi Bužekijan. This kind of concealed ownership is something we are familiar with from the days when Boško Šrot controlled Pivovarna Laško through connected ownership, which also controlled the newspaper, Delo. Anyway, the prosecutor charged Senica with money laundering and inciting the former director of Vegrad, Hilda Tovšak, to abuse her position. Tovšak was accused of abuse of office, while Blanka Muster, director of Kmetija Bužekijan, was charged with aiding in this abuse. Additionally, Senica’s secretary Olga Zaviršek and Muster were accused of aiding in the crime of money laundering. Senica’s legal representative in this case was another well-known lawyer, Stojan Zdolšek, who had previously been Senica’s opponent.
Tovšak admitted guilt, but then…
What was the case about? The now-defunct Vegrad purchased Delamaris shares for 13.5 million euros and paid 1.35 million euros to the Bužekijan company for consulting and mediation services. According to prosecutors, the money ended up in Senica’s hands.
The more interesting part, however, is that in this legal process, Tovšak admitted guilt in 2017. Then there were suggestions that the Celje prosecutor, Stanislav Pintar, had practically extorted this admission from the psychologically fragile Tovšak, as reported by the media. A year earlier, Pintar had even defended Tovšak. Of course, Senica did not admit guilt. In December 2018, Tovšak withdrew her guilty plea at the pre-trial hearing, and the court assisted Senica in unfreezing his assets.
Then came the key moment: the testimony of economic expert Milena Kosi. She concluded that the 1.3-million-euro deal between Vegrad and Bužekijan was economically justified from Vegrad’s perspective. Regarding the payment of 1.3 million euros for consulting in the purchase of shares, she stated that Vegrad had, at the time, created an investment plan for tourism projects expected to bring in 145 million euros in revenue. “In 2007, Slovenia introduced the euro. Many saw business opportunities in this and tried to take advantage. Therefore, I believe that the deal between Vegrad and Bužekijan was economically justified,” Kosi testified on November 9th, 2021.
Therefore, according to this expert evaluation, there was no criminal offense. The prosecution immediately withdrew the indictment, and the Celje court halted the proceedings.
Such business practices were also normal at Imos
This story is particularly interesting due to the ongoing trial in the Trenta case, where, just yesterday, former Imos supervisory board chairwoman Danica Vrtačnik testified at the same Celje court. She explained that, at the time of the purchase of the estate in Trenta, Imos was thriving financially, and the purchase was routine. There was enough money, so they did not delve deeper into the matter. According to her, this deal did not cause Imos’ later financial problems. The purchase of the property for 150,000 euros – what the Trenta estate cost – was, in her opinion, a relatively minor transaction, considering that the company then owned real estate worth a total of 25 million euros. For such smaller deals, the director did not need authorisation from the supervisory board. In other words, it was a fairly insignificant deal, economically justified at the time, much like the Bužekijan case, if we are to believe the expert Milena Kosi.
Nevertheless, both the Specialised State Prosecutor’s Office and the Celje District Court appear to have different plans, which involve interrogating court appraisers, who valued Janša’s former property at around 20,000 euros or even less. This is the amount assessed by the former appraiser Nikolaja Kogovšek Gilčvert, who was heard yesterday, while appraiser Breda Zorko, who is expected to appear in court in the future, valued the property at just over 17,000 euros – of course, before Imos’ property was put up for auction. Zorko was quick to explain that “the land is hard to access, making utility services difficult, and it is located in the Triglav National Park, where construction interventions are restricted, yet it is still conditionally building land. Moreover, access to the land is via a sort of footbridge.”
Other appraisers also valued the mentioned property at a similar amount, and it turned out that they are politically compromised. These include Andrej Kocuvan (now the president of the association of court appraisers in the construction sector and a member of the SD party in Maribor), Bojan Grum (court appraiser in the construction sector), Andrej Udovč (agricultural economist), and Andrej Avsenek (court appraiser for forestry). The appraisal was conducted by breaking down the valuation of the parcel into construction, agriculture, and forestry. It also turned out that one of the experts was not even a construction specialist by education, but rather an engineer in geodesy and utilities, while another who signed the expert opinion did not even inspect the property being evaluated.
From 17,000 to 130,000 euros for the same property?
Of course, such appraisals play into the hands of those directing the legal proceedings, where they are trying to prove that Janez Janša profited by more than one hundred thousand euros from a legal transaction because he allegedly sold a “worthless” property for at least five times its value. It supposedly worked in his favour that he was the prime minister at the time. However, there are also appraisals that showed a significantly different situation. The court also hired Franc Nahtigal, a Master of Economics and civil engineer, for an appraisal. From this appraisal, it is evident that the market value of these properties in 2005 was at least 110,000 euros. Furthermore, the portal Politikis states that Nahtigal’s report indicates that while the land indeed lacks utility infrastructure, records show that some utility lines are in close proximity, about 50 meters away, such as electricity.
Two buildings stand on the property: one is a dilapidated and partially demolished residential building with a house number, and the other is a partially demolished non-residential structure – a farm building. According to the appraiser, the poor condition of the buildings is due to a lack of regular maintenance. The appraiser states that almost ten years without essential maintenance is a relatively long period for a property, during which the structural condition can deteriorate significantly. Both buildings were built around 1900, according to publicly available data. Furthermore, the court-appointed appraiser states in the report that he based his evaluation on several completed transactions in the area of Trenta up until 2014, as well as on IMOS’ plan from 2006 to build structures with a total area of 165 square meters within the existing buildings. He also added that, according to public records, part of the land is designated as agricultural, part as forest, and part as building land. According to the Slovenian Surveying and Mapping Authority, the area of the building land is 218 square meters.
Court-certified expert Nahtigal also inspected the property related to his court-appointed expert assessment. He then calculated its value using carefully described procedures. The report reveals: “The total estimated market value of the property for the period 2005 to 2006 is 109,644.97 euros.” The rounded estimate is 110,000 euros.
The property was sold at auction for seven times the amount appraised by Breda Zorko
Appraiser Anton Kožar even valued the property at nearly 140,000 euros, and it was later sold from Imos’ bankruptcy estate for (almost) 130,000 euros. Although it was supposedly in worse condition than in 2005, when Janša sold the property. So, did Imos’ bankruptcy manager commit fraud by selling the property, which Zorko appraised at just over 17,000 euros, for seven times that amount?
This only further amplifies the already significant doubt surrounding the massive legal proceedings in the Trenta case, where the judge practically acts as the prosecutor (or, as they say in places south of us: “The judge prosecutes, the judge sentences”), while no one seems to be dealing with the corruption that is literally screaming from the renovations and purchases of court buildings anymore. This means that the Trenta case has a dual role: besides the renewed attempt to remove the leader of the opposition party from politics, it seeks to create the illusion of a Potemkin village to cover up real corrupt dealings. And if anything happens to make it to court, the godfathers will ensure that the indictments are withdrawn – following the example of Senica.