However, by examining the available and newly received documentation, the questionable determining of facts in the Soboli case, i.e. regarding the complaint against the official Tomislav Karamarko, an even greater problem for USKOK (The Office for the Suppression of Corruption and Organized Crime) is also the dismissal of the criminal complaint by USKOK of March 3 this year, than it will be for the Commission. Namely, obvious oversights of the investigators and other persons involved in the previous proceeding led by USKOK in determining facts, oversights which affected the decision and could’ve significantly changed Tomislav Karamarko’s status in the criminal-legal sense in the Soboli case, initiated a new complaint to DORH (State’s Attorney Office of the Republic of Croatia), to USKOK and to the General Police Directorate by the association Partnership for Social Development against the official Tomislav Karamarko and other persons involved in the previous actions regarding the case.
Namely, as it is stated in the new complaint, there are many things that are disputable in the previous actions of the competent authorities of criminal prosecution, i.e. as we colloquially call them in the actions of the “rule of law”.
Occupation of the country in 4 points
First of all, what is disputable is the dismissal by USKOK of the complaint on March 7, 2016. Namely, as it is stated in the complaint, and for which the relevant documentation has been submitted for, the question is being raised of how it is possible that USKOK issued a Decision of dismissal (Number: K-US-61/16) this year in March, by which the complaint of Partnership for Social Development against Tomislav Karamarko is dismissed, when in point 3 of the complaint, i.e. the point of the earlier complaint regarding the Soboli case, USKOK had already, on September 9, 2011, issued a decision on the dismissal by Decision number: K-US-222/11 (enclosure 1). This especially, because regarding the case dismissal of USKOK of September 2011, Partnership for Social Development filed an objection to the dismissal (enclosure 2), which was also dismissed by the Decision of the board under number: K-US-222/11, exactly 2 months after (October 27, 2011 (enclosure 3)), by which the complaint of Partnership for Social Development in the Soboli case was finally put to an end.
Therefore, in the new criminal complaint of Partnership for Social Development from June 6, 2016, in the first point it is asked that the following be established: the way in which, in what procedure and based on which regulations, after four years, a repeated dismissal occurred of the already dismissed criminal complaint; and that it is established if the stated is in any way connected to the re-appointment of Tomislav Karamarko at the position of official.
Although this years’ dismissal is questionable in itself, the real problems for USKOK start in the second point of the new complaint. Namely, as it was determined by analysis of all documents to date in the the Soboli case, USKOK indisputably determined that Tomislav Karamarko, via the social contract of October 18, 2006 transferred his co-ownership shares in the company Soboli to Ivan Baketa. USKOK claims the aforementioned in the Dismissal of the criminal complaint of September 9, 2011 (enclosure 1), and in the Decision on dismissal of the objection regarding the complaint, of October 27, 2011 (enclosure 3) and confirms it in the disputable Dismissal of March 7, 2016 (enclosure 4). Moreover, in its dismissal of the criminal complaint of September 9, 2011, USKOK explicitly claims that having examined the file at the Commercial Court on July 12, 2011, the investigators undoubtedly determined that Tomislav Karamarko transferred to other people the business shares in the companies Soboli, Stabilis consultum, Doron net, based on Contracts of business share transfers, all of which were concluded on October 18, 2006…
Not even in one document does USKOK mention that in the file of Soboli at the Commercial Court after the mentioned dates first appeared the disputable Demand for registration of change of ownership in the Commercial Court (enclosure 5) of October 22, 2006 and then a day after, i.e. October 23, 2006, that the same Demand was withdrawn (enclosure 6) and that a few days after, on October 27, 2006, the Commercial Court issued a Decision on the suspending of the proceeding on the Demand for registration of change of ownership in the Commercial Court (enclosure 7), which consequently means that the mentioned registration of ownership change didn’t occur, i.e. that it wasn’t carried out and that the social contract of October 18, 2006 which USKOK refers to, has no legal effect on the ownership.
To recall, Ivan Pandžić came upon the mentioned documents at the Commercial Court first, and then the
In the third point of the complaint, Partnership for Social Development warns that USKOK, also in the situation of determining the very indicative act, neglected it in the further proceedings. Namely, as it is stated in the complaint and documentation of USKOK, during the procedure, USKOK determined that the Soboli company had all the required certificates, i.e. that the “status documentation was acquired for the company Soboli as was the documentation which includes (issued decisions, author’s note), to the stated company by the competent state institutions which are the Office of the Natural Security Council, the Ministry of the Sea, Tourism, Transport and Development, the Croatian Register of Shipping, the National Protection and Rescue Directorate and the Ministry of the Interior, the issued certificates of the business security of the legal entity Soboli, the decisions and the certificates from which it clear that that company was authorised to conclude classified contracts of a degree of secrecy mark “confidential”…
In the new complaint, it is asked that is determined in what way Soboli came to the mentioned certificates which allow it a privileged position in the market, especially considering the fact that most of the stated certificates, i.e. opinions needed for their issuing are issued by bodies such as the Ministry of Interior (MUP) and the Security and Intelligence Agency (SOA), which Tomislav Karamarko was head of at that time. In the previous procedure, UKOK and the investigators of PN USKOK omitted/failed to also determine this aspect, important for the decision.
In the fourth point of the complaint of Partnership for Social Development, it is also asked that the documents on the conclusion of the contract with the companies owned or co-owned by the Republic of Croatia from the period of the year 2003 to 2011 are collected, for the following: Croatian Motorways Ltd, Podravka, INA, Croatia osiguranje, Rijeka-Zagreb Motorway, Janaf, HEP, Underground gas storage Ltd., Croatia Control Ltd. and Croatian Radiotelevision, Croatian National Bank, the Ports of Rijeka, Zadar, Šibenik, Split, Ploče, Dubrovnik Authority, the Split-Dalmatia County Port and the Dubrovnik-Neretva County Port and the community of port authorities and the Ministry of the Sea, Tourism, Transport and Development (the current Ministry of Maritime Affairs, Transport and Infrastructure).
Namely, as it is claimed in the complaint, USKOK, i.e. the investigators on both dismissals of the criminal complaint against Tomislav Karamarko didn’t go into analysis of the elements of the execution of the stated contracts; according to complaint there it is suspected that in the execution of the contract by Soboli resources and documents were used of the Security and Intelligence Agency (SOA), which would present a series of crimes for all those involved in the said actions/operations.
Who’s responsible, if anyone is at all?
Since submitting the complaint, we’ve tried to get a comment from USKOK as well, i.e. an answer to how it is possible, for example, for the mentioned Dismissal of the complaint to occur 4 years after it was already dismissed and how it is possible for journalist Ivan Pandžić and a few employees of the association Partnership for Social Development to determine the existence of documents in the file of the Commercial Court that USKOK and the investigators of PN USKOK didn’t find in an investigating period of more than four years – on this, the spokesman of USKOK, mister Vuk Đuričić responded:
Considering that Partnership for Social Development was delivered already two solutions on the dismissal of the criminal complaint and it is completely clear what they say, we have nothing more to add here.
Analysing all of the above, according to the new complaint of Partnership for Social Development, it’s not a question of if they did, but it’s a question of who from USKOK, PN USKOK, the Commercial Court and SOA prevented the rule of law!? I.e. who, as things now stand, participated in the possible cover-up of the decade, i.e. by failing to do the due action, prevented a satisfactory legal epilogue of the Soboli case and the complaint against official Tomislav Karamarko?
ENCLOSURES (available only in Croatian):