The Commission for the Decision on Conflict of Interest fined Member of Parliament Franjo Lucić (HDZ) 12,000 kuna on Thursday, while no proceedings were initiated against former Minister of Economy Ivan Vrdoljak.
Lucić will have to pay the amount of 12,000 kuna from his salary in six monthly installments because, as explained by the Deputy President of the Commission, Tatijana Vučetić, he did not declare a debt to the state budget in his asset declaration, which is listed among the debtors of the Tax Administration in the amount of 335,982 kuna.
>>>The Commission established a ‘discrepancy’ in the assets of Josipa Rimac, initiated proceedings
She clarified that Lucić received a decision from the Tax Administration in March 2014 regarding how much his tax debt to the state was, which he did not declare in his asset declarations from 2016 submitted to the Commission for the Decision on Conflict of Interest.
Vučetić stated that Lucić violated the Law on Preventing Conflict of Interest because he did not justify the established discrepancy between his assets and the submitted reports on his financial status.
The reporter in the case of former Minister of Economy Branka Lukačević-Gregić said that the Commission did not initiate a report against Vrdoljak because the data provided to them from the ministries of economy and environment and energy did not establish any interest connection between the companies that installed the distributors and the former Minister of Economy.
She explained that Lucić received a decision from the Tax Administration in March 2014 regarding how much his tax debt to the state was, which he did not declare in his asset declarations from 2016 submitted to the Commission for the Decision on Conflict of Interest.
Namely, the Commission received a non-anonymous report against Vrdoljak in which the reporter accused him of “fraud and deception” regarding the installation of distributors in cooperation with the company “Brunata” even though no feasibility study was ever made while heating prices were enormously high and apartments were cold. Additionally, along with the company “Brunata”, distributors were also installed by “Siemens” and “Danfoss”. “From the court extracts for these companies, no interest connection with Vrdoljak can be seen,” said Lukačević-Gregić.
Proceedings initiated against former APN director Goran Bradić; fined 5,000 kuna the mayor of Pleternica
The Commission fined the mayor of Pleternica, Antonija Jozić, 5,000 kuna, payable in five installments, because she did not report a gift from her mother for settling a tax obligation in the amount of 270,979 kuna incurred from the activity “Drvotokarija 1965” which she owned until December 2013.
Noting that the amount received and the fact that it was a gift from her mother is not disputed by the Commission, the reporter in this case, Davorin Ivanjek, said that the disputed fact is that Jozić did not report this gift immediately at the moment she received it. Namely, it was not visible from the asset declaration how she came to those funds, which violated the Law on Preventing Conflict of Interest.
>>>The Commission: Recognition of Janica Kostelić as ‘Zagreb Woman of the Year’ OK, monetary award not
The Commission initiated proceedings against former director of the Agency for Legal Transactions and Real Estate Mediation (APN) Goran Bradić because, as Ivanjek stated, there is a connected relationship between Bradić and former Deputy Prime Minister Božo Petrov. He noted that the director and deputy of that Agency are appointed by the Government, at a meeting where Petrov also participated. Namely, Bradić issued Petrov a conditional consent for a loan request from the Program for Encouraged Housing Construction (POS) for the construction of a family house, even though all reported members of the joint household were not registered at the same address.
Ivanjek stated that Bradić violated the Law on Preventing Conflict of Interest because he abused the special rights that belong to him in relation to granting conditional consent even though the subsidized loan was not realized.
He emphasized that it cannot be read from the submitted documentation that APN would determine anything or request anything further after the bank approved the loan to Petrov, which was not indicated by previous practice nor is it seen from the APN’s Rules of Procedure.
