Uskok accused Vojko Obersnel and former water polo player Barać

The indictment charges that, in the period from June 2008 to the end of 2016, in Rijeka, District I. – until April 15, 2009, as the president of the Rijeka City Council (hereinafter: the City), and then as the mayor of the City and III. district – Director of the City Administration Department for Development, Urban Planning, Ecology and Land Management, at the request of II. district – the founders and responsible persons of a trading company (further: TD), by agreement undertook actions from their scope that favored TD to the detriment of the City’s financial interests.

Namely, after the Municipality decided to sell the city land intended for the construction of a multi-residential building, on June 3, 2008, a tender was announced for the sale of that land, on which TD was chosen as the most favorable offer. After that, I. and III. district took a series of actions with the aim of obtaining illegal property benefits from TD in the way that they accepted the demands of II. district to change the tender conditions for the payment of the purchase price, issued the consents of the City and enabled the subdivision of city land in accordance with the interests of II. district, extended the terms of repayment of the purchase price and accepted unfounded calculations that reduced the purchase price.

Thus, contrary to the competition conditions I. and III. district agreed to enable the acceptance of the request II. district with which he requested a change in the terms of payment for the land in such a way that he pays part of the price within the stipulated period, and that he pays the remaining part by giving the City ownership of the apartments in the building he will build. Then the 1st district on behalf of the City as the seller, with TD as the buyer, on October 14, 2008, signed the Preliminary Agreement on the purchase and sale of real estate.

Although the competition envisaged the construction of one residential building, I. and III. district are by issuing consent, drawn up according to the instructions of II. district, granted TD the construction of two buildings on city land, which included two new buildings that were not included in the tender. Based on that, II. district obtained a Decision on building conditions in accordance with which the subdivision was carried out in a manner that suited him. Then the first district on behalf of the City and II. district on behalf of TD, on January 21, 2010, he concluded an Agreement on the purchase and sale of real estate of newly formed plots, each of which is intended for the construction of one building, with the obligation of the City to immediately transfer the right of ownership to the buyer, which was in contradiction to the previously concluded Preliminary Agreement. In addition, II. district enabled him to secure a claim of 327,691.70 euros by registering a lien on his real estate, even though their value was not sufficient to cover the claims.

After the construction of apartments, according to order I. and III. district, the city took over two apartments before obtaining the use permit. The first apartment was taken over on June 27, 2013, and at the request of II. district, on the same day III. district in agreement with the 1st district, drew up a statement that deleted the lien, although the purchase price was not paid in full, and the City’s claim against TD was not secured with sufficient funds. Thus, II. district made it possible to encumber the real estate by pledging it in order to obtain a loan. The second apartment was only subsequently taken over in October of that year.

An expert was hired to assess the value of the taken over apartments – IV. district, which performed the required assessment on two occasions during 2013 and 2014. At the same time, in accordance with the demand of II. district, and contrary to the rules of the profession, estimated the price of the apartments at a significantly higher amount than the market prices and the prices at which such apartments were sold to other customers. Based on this, the City recognized the payment of the purchase price to TD in a significantly higher amount, which was used by TD for 102,378.34 euros. Then I. and III. okr., although there was no basis for it, enabled II. district that TD pay the remaining part of the price to the City only in October 2016, without paying the statutory default interest.

They also allowed TD to be the only possible buyer of city land that borders the land that TD previously acquired in the manner described above, so District I, at the proposal of III. okr., on October 4, 2010, gave consent for TD to build buildings on plots of land, two of which are owned by the City. Based on that, II. district obtained a location permit, while the parcels determined by the parcelization study were parceled out in a way that suited the TD, and it was also enabled to reshape the parcels that are owned by the City.

Furthermore, I. district, on the proposal of III. district, announced a public tender for the sale of city land in accordance with the valid location permit, with the fact that as a special condition of the tender, the ownership of a new plot that was created in the manner described above, which condition could only be fulfilled by TD, was chosen as the most favorable bidder, as a result of which District I. On July 9, 2012, TD offered to conclude a contract on the purchase and sale of land.

Before concluding the contract, II. district Submitted a request to the city to change the tender conditions, which is the I. district, on the proposal of the III. district, accepted even though it was unfavorable for the City. Thus, he approved the payment of part of the purchase price by building an access road to the land in question, with the value of the road being determined by an expert’s assessment after its construction. The implementation was entrusted to the department headed by III. district and then on December 21, 2012, on behalf of the City with II. district as the director of TD concluded the Purchase Agreement for the sale of two plots, which included the mentioned compensation and the handover of the residential space in the value of the rest of the price.

Then III. district, without the necessary expert assessment, based on an unfounded bill of costs II. district, recognized the costs of the construction of the access road of 53,336.85 euros, although the works actually cost 22,768.33 euros. Then the I. district, on the basis of the material created by the III. district, made possible by II. district to pay the rest of the purchase price in cash, and no longer by handing over the housing as was defined by the contract. The deadline for payment of the remaining EUR 43,053.09 is set for December 31, 2016. However, TD demanded further delays and repayment in installments and has not paid the stated amount until today, in which way TD received a benefit of 73,621.61 euros.

By the entire described procedure, the defendants obtained an illegal benefit of at least 175,999.94 euros from TD, for which amount they damaged the City.

As a reminder, 24sata was the first to announce that Uskok launched an investigation against former SDP mayor Vojko Obersnel and famous Croatian water polo player Samir Bara due to suspicions of illegal dealings with city lands and apartments, writes 24sata.

According to the documents we obtained, the City of Rijeka has sold construction land to Bara’s company at least three times, and one of the disputed deals relates to a plot in Kozala where two residential buildings were built.

Namely, the land was sold in 2010 for HRK 2.8 million, but Barać’s company paid only about HRK 400,000, while the rest was allegedly “beaten” through two city apartments.

The city then took over a larger apartment of 105.5 square meters with three parking spaces, as well as a smaller apartment of 24 square meters with the right to use the parking lot and terrace. The cost estimate according to which the smaller apartment was registered to the City was more than HRK 463,000, that is, about EUR 2,570 per square meter, which was estimated by court experts from that time.

According to real estate prices at the time, the average square meter of an apartment varied between 1,100 and 1,300 euros, which points to the possibility that the City of Rijeka paid significantly more than the market value for these properties.

This is not the only business under investigation: in 2012, Bara’s company bought another piece of land worth HRK 726,000 and agreed to build a road as part of the exchange. Part of that obligation, HRK 402,000, was “offset” because the company built the road, while the rest was to be paid by the end of 2016.

Another plot of 1000 square meters in Kozala was sold by the city in 2015 through a public tender – with a starting price of HRK 830 per square meter. It is interesting that Barć’s company offered exactly that amount, not a kuna more, and was the only bidder.

Uskok, which investigates these affairs, suspects Obersnel and Bara because of the damage estimated at around 200,000 euros, caused, as they state, during the purchase and takeover of apartments in exchange for land.