It is naive to believe that the Supervisory Board should disclose events like this robbery of INA

First of all, it is necessary to distance oneself in terms of not only the existence of the presumption of innocence, which is guaranteed by the Constitution of the Republic of Croatia (which means that until a final verdict we can speak of alleged crime and allegedly responsible persons), but this is still a less significant formal matter. What is important is that no one (except the prosecution authorities) actually has complete data and insight into the case, and from media reports, there is a strong feeling that at least part of the data presented there is incorrect.

With these reservations, the first feeling is that the current events have a very negative effect on everything related to the largest Croatian (by headquarters criteria) company, among other things, and on the many times highly announced (but never concretized, despite the fact that there are some very concrete and, in our opinion, realistic proposals in favorem of Croatian, and to the detriment of Hungarian management) takeover of the controlling stake by the Republic of Croatia. This is also contributed to by the fact that at this moment the procedure involves exclusively Croatian citizens. It is very likely that a drop in stock value will follow, but also (publicly or privately, formally or informally) charging the ‘Croatian side’ for such a sequence of events.

Unrealistic expectations

The second feeling is almost incredulity regarding the non-existence or existence, regarding the (in)effectiveness of something that is commonly referred to as internal control, which exists in every developed system, from corporate to state. Here, the most expert and generally best people are usually singled out (or should be if one wants to do well, i.e., does not want to cover up either negligence or crime), along with a million various controls from daily to longer levels. Certainly, one part of the protection is guaranteed by complete material independence.

Thus, it is quite naive to think that the Supervisory Board (except for advocating for the formation and equipping and creating conditions for the operation of internal control) would be the one to discover events like this one that led to a series of arrests. In our system and especially in practice, it simply is not so, and it is otherwise unrealistic to expect that a smaller group of people for whom this is some additional engagement and whose most important part is to accept or not accept management reports (which management provides for already completed periods) would uncover what those whose daily job it is do not discover.

Therefore, one should start from whether such control existed, if not, why not, and if it did, why and how it works or does not work. Additionally, whether there had been previous reports to the prosecution authorities and what was done about them.

Large arrests ‘dilute’ over time

The third feeling is something that has been repeating practically since Croatia’s independence, which is that there is persistence in the modus operandi of the prosecution authorities (but also part of the media) that has, as we all know, not proven justified. Namely, at the very beginning, arrests are carried out ‘with great fanfare’, and the media is full of data that is either incorrect or irrelevant or half-true. Little by little, the problem becomes less significant for the media, it is most often completely ‘diluted’, and even if a conviction is reached, it bears little resemblance to what initiated the proceedings, and it is not at all likely that anyone will ever check and compare (let alone be held accountable for) how much money was spent in some proceedings and how much of it is clearly unnecessary.

For example, it is really unclear what (other than cheap populism) the photographs of buildings allegedly belonging to the long-time director and president of HOK serve (without data on their value, whether they were acquired, for example, through a loan, what the reported income of the mentioned individuals was in previous periods, whether there were checks on the origin of the property and what they showed) – are they criminals just because they have that property (if it is even theirs, that should be checked and those are practically public data)?

Why is it bad for a commercial company (in this case for the company OMS, but also for the company Plinara istočne Slavonije) what the Prime Minister has been publicly boasting about for a long time that has been agreed for the Croatian state and its citizens (low purchase price) who pay ten times less amounts, for example, for consumed electricity and price increases only from autumn – shouldn’t the rule of equality before the law apply?

Why is there no data on whether the company Plinara istočne Slavonije was the only one to have such a (privileged) contract or not, if it was the only one, then the initial and key question is who approved it and why, and not whether and through whom that company earned. Namely, if INA only favored that company with the price, it suffers a loss up to the market price, regardless of what the buyer does next and whether and how much it earns.

Why is there somehow a doubt in the public’s common sense, so in the same text it is published that the ‘red light’ was triggered by payments to the account of a retiree from Zadar, but also data on the profit of the company OMS, without such data for Plinara istočne Slavonije and/or explanations about payments to the account of the retiree who is otherwise the father of the individual who allegedly conceived everything and who, according to the investigators’ conclusion (quote from Slobodna Dalmacija, Sunday, p. 6) was not rewarded with a bribe, but with a payment to his own father’s account. ‘O tempora, o mores’, we can only repeat the saying of the ancient Latins over such a construction.

INA has nothing to defend

The possible future indictment, as things stand now, will not go against INA, so INA has nothing to defend in that sense. Of course, during the proceedings leading to a possible indictment, anything can happen, and it is very ungrateful and irresponsible to prejudge anything. If INA at some point poorly planned its pricing strategy and related contractual provisions, that in itself is not a crime, but it is hard to believe that it was so for one company and differently for another or others.

It is predictable that things will slowly but surely dilute, with relatively small chances for a quick and effective process in terms of obtaining a conviction or convictions approximately in line with what was initiated with the arrests. And it is clear what the European Court of Human Rights and generally modern standards consider an acceptable reasonable time – that is three years.

The prospects for such a thing, we regret to say, are zero, and we would very much like a practical denial that would not be based on some kind of settlement, but on a process that would go into the merits of the matter, regardless of what conclusion the court would ultimately draw.

Final comment

Everyone should learn from history, so this ideally means learning from others’ mistakes, not from one’s own. We all know who Al Capone was, but also that he was finally brought to justice not for proven murder, but for so-called fine, more precisely tax offenses. When that is the case and when we also recall that this is one of the few areas in which the state has nothing to prove, but if the other side does not prove the origin, it must pay all dues, of course, and penalties, there should be no greater doubts. The cost of the proceedings and the engaged services is certainly minimal.

Knowing that a very small part of those who have a disproportion of assets (legally earned and real) conceal the same (the rule is actually quite the opposite, especially regarding expensive cars and vessels and real estate), it follows that they almost report themselves, especially if the services do their job. When we know all this, when we also know how much the most publicized proceedings actually cost, for example, those that (judging by the outcomes) were probably initiated too early, the real question is one – why?