SOCIETAL CAPTURE IV: Exclusive! Petar Pripuz registered himself on a property owned by Slobodan Ljubičić before the eyes of the police and USKOK!
Countries Croatia FP IRIS Gray Latest
0 226
Translation: Fairpress
Authors: M. Podumljak, A. Hećimović
Analysis of the registered land certificate of the property owned by Slobodan Ljubičić, CEO of the public company Zagreb holding (owned by the City of Zagreb), indicated that Petar Pripuz, CEO of the C.I.O.S. group registered a claim (lien/IOU) in the amount of 5,5 million HRK on a house owned by Ljubičić and a yard (648 m2) that are located in Pantovčak (high-end neighbourhood of Zagreb). The mortgage on a property that was signed as security for the loan given by Petar Pripuz was registered in court on 15 January 2015; not even a month and a half after Pripuz (CEO of C.I.O.S.), Ljubičić (C.E.O. of Zagreb Holding), and Bandić  (Mayor of Zagreb) paid their bails in the amount ranging from 5 million HRK (approximately 670.000 EUR) to 15 million HRK (approximately 2 million EUR) and got out from custody in the case where they were arrested for embezzling the public procurement procedure. However, the story about the financial ties between Petar Pripuz, the founder of the C.I.O.S. group and Slobodan Ljubičić, CEO of Zagreb Holding, doesn’t start here. In 2008 Slobodan Ljubičić signed a mortgage on the mentioned property in Pantovčak with a loan from the, at the time well-known for its suspected businesses, Hypo Alpe Adria Bank d.d. (JSC – joint-stock company) in the amount of 828.763,00 EUR. Two years after the bank loan that we refer to, in 2010, the mortgage of HAAB d.d. was erased and a mortgage of a similar amount on the same property was registered on the name of a loan giver – Ivan Leko for the amount of 5 million HRK (approximately 670.000 EUR), with a repayment deadline until 2020. By verifying the identity, we determined that loan giver Ivan Leko, who registered the mortgage on a property owned by Slobodan Ljubičić in 2011, is the same Ivan Leko who along with Petar Pripuz and Anto Pamuković “took over” ownership over the C.I.O.M. company, (a “mother company” that established the C.I.O.S. group) from Berislav Leko, Zoran Pripuz and Marijana Cigić in 1994.

As it was already established by previous articles Zoran Pripuz, brother of Petar Pripuz (CEO of the C.I.O.S. group) was one of the persons indicted in the famous millennium case titled officially as  “Criminal organisation case”, colloquially known as “Boys from Knežija(Knežija being one of Zagreb’s neighbourhoods)”, he is also one of the founders of the C.I.O.M. company (mother company of the C.I.O.S. group) together with a close relative of the Ivan Leko (Berislav Leko).

Therefore, by establishing the process tracing in the cases of mortgage over the personal property, the data suggest that already in 2010 Slobodan Ljubičić owed the Knežija Boys – 5 million HRK. Shortly after that, in 2013 Slobodan Ljubičić became president of the Management Board of Zagreb Holding (CEO) for the second time and one of the most powerful associates of Zagreb’s Mayor Milan Bandić. After he took over the position of president of the Management Board of Zagreb Holding, the business between the C.I.O.S. group and the City (Zagreb) Holding intensified, and none of the competent institutions reacted or interfered with their business until the end of 2014 when the three – Bandić, Pripuz, and Ljubičić – were arrested in a spectacular action due to direct contracting of public procurement, which we wrote about earlier. However, immediately after their release from custody (November 2014), business of Zagreb Holding with the members of the, at the time suspected, C.I.O.S. group multiplied annually and reached over 50 million HRK (6,7 mill EUR) in 2015 despite the previous arrests (see previous article here). Regarding that conduct, there might be more issues which the criminal justice bodies in the AGRAM case didn’t cover, as established by the Fairpress.eu investigation. First, considering that Ivan Leko is one of the founders of C.I.O.M., which is the mother company of the C.I.O.S. group, a justified question is being raised of whether the C.I.O.S. group could’ve concluded any procurement contract with Zagreb Holding at all, since the Public Procurement Act (then article 13 of the PP Act and today’s articles 75 to 83 of the Public Procurement Act) explicitly prohibits conflict of interest in contracting procedures. In this case, there is a reasonable suspicion that a person closely tied to Slobodan Ljubičić’s private financial interest,had close ties to the company that was awarded the contract in the public procurement procedure by Zagreb Holding, where Ljubičić had strong and continuous influence as at the time

he was employee of Zagreb Holding and ex CEO.

According to the Public Procurement Act, if public procurement contracts were to be concluded despite conflict of interest, such contracts would be considered null and void which would consequently lead to a criminal procedure against the persons involved. However, the investigative bodies didn’t cover this aspect of business conducting between Bandić, Ljubičić and Pripuz during the arrests in 2014, at least not according to the text of the indictment. On the other hand, if the stated situation doesn’t represent conflict of interest, the one that followed surely could. A month and a half after the arrests of 2014, as we stated at the beginning of the article, Petar Pripuz (CEO of the C.I.O.S. group) registered himself on the mortgage over the mentioned house and yard in Pantovčak, owned by Slobodan Ljubičić for an amount of 5 and a half million HRK. So, in continuation of this case, the CEO of CIOS Group (Pripuz) that was awarded the contract by Zagreb Hodling, during the time when Slobodan Ljubičić managed the hodling, loaned Ljubičić money, which establishes clear personal financial interest of Ljubičić and Pripuz during the contract award procedure. As the same persons were indicted in the AGRAM case just a few months before the contract was awarded to C.I.O.S. group, the appearance of conflict of interest is self-explanatory.

It also appears from the established facts that at the time, the group was in a hurry to register the mortgage over the Ljubičić’s property, in a sloppy procedure that was fixed soon after. As they realised that stating the name of Petar Pripuz in the mortgage (as loan giver) recorded in the Land register could pose an issue and raise some eyebrows by investigators or the interested public, already in April of the same year the mortgage was once more transferred to another party. Petar Pripuz was erased as the loan giver and the company EUROHALA d.o.o. (Ltd) was registered instead of him as the loan giver. As you can already assume yourselves, one of the fundamental members of the company EUROHALA d.o.o. (Ltd) is again Petar Pripuz. However, neither this caught the eye of the investigative bodies, judging by the indictment, which is still awaiting its confirmation before the court.

To recall, after the arrests the companies, i.e. companies which are part of the C.I.O.S. group, concluded three public procurement contracts with Zagreb Holding in the value of 21,9 million HRK; and upon the return of Slobodan Ljubičić to the position of assistant of the president of the Management Board of Zagreb Holding in November 2015, Zagreb Holding concluded two framework agreements each in the value of approximately 18 million HRK. It’s exactly these framework agreements that could be controversial from a conflict of interest standpoint, considering that we’ve indisputably proven in the previous articles that from his position, Slobodan Ljubičić “was able to influence the outcome of the public procurement procedure”, and at the moment of contracting he was already indebted to the president of Management and one of the key owners of the C.I.O.S., Petar Pripuz. In order for the concealment of the property owned by Slobodan Ljubičić to be finalised, i.e. in order for any possible seizure to be prevented if the criminal procedure ends bad for the aforementioned three, in 2016 and 2017 Ljubičić was trying to transfer the ownership over his villa in Pantovčak to his wife Ines Ljubičić based on a real estate deed of gift.

All of the aforementioned was happening before the eyes of USKOK and the police, without any reaction and record that these actions were recorded in the investigation, considering that none of the stated actions were mentioned in the indictment proposal, which three years after the arrests still awaits a decision, i.e. confirmation before the County court of Zagreb. What else is to be expected when after the arrests of Petar Pripuz, Slobodan Ljubičić and Milan Bandić for abuse of the public procurement procedure, MUP (Ministry of the Interior), as we wrote earlier, had been procuring, as well via public procurement, devices for automatic detection of car registration plates and hand-held speed-detection devices (the popular radars) instead of investigating these connections.

Enclosed:
REGISTERED LAND CERTIFICATE – Historical
Historical excerpt of EUROHAL
Memorandum of Association of C.I.O.M. – TRGOVINA d.o.o. dating 4 February 1991
I. Annex to the Memorandum of Association of C.I.O.M. – TRGOVINA d.o.o. dating 8 April 1991
Company Share Transfer Agreement Free of Charge dating 29 September 1994 (M. Cigić transfers to A. Pamuković)
Company Share Transfer Agreement Free of Charge dating 14 February 1994 (B. Leko transfers to I. Leku)
Company Share Transfer Agreement Free of Charge dating 14 February 1994 (Z. Pripuz transfers to P. Pripuza)
II. Annex to the Memorandum of Association of C.I.O.M. from 10 October 1995
Historical excerpt of C.I.O.M
Connected articles: AGRAM affair I: USKOK and the County court of Zagreb allowed Bandić, Ljubičić and Pripuz to continue their lucrative business and 50 million HRK of income despite the spectacle arrestsAGRAM affair II: “Business as usual” for Bandić, Pripuz and Ljubičić and 50 million HRK of income before the eyes of criminal justiceAGRAM affair III: Can the Ministry of the Interior, engaged in business contracting with the suspect (Pripuz), impartially conduct the criminal procedure against him!?

Comments

comments

WordPress Video Lightbox