BRATISLAVA, August 11, (WEBNOVINY) — The government privatization company, the National Property Fund (FNM), has already paid EUR 1.1 million to the company Vansa. “The National Property Fund used all available legal means to avoid distraint proceedings as a result of the lawsuit with the company Vansa. In spite this, it was forced, based on the distraint order, to pay over EUR 1.1 million to a firm which not only was a postbox firm, but also in liquidation,” stated Miloslav Homola from the National Property Fund. The distrainer blocked the fund’s bank accounts in the State Treasury Bank due to the lost lawsuit.
The SME daily reported on Thursday that the government privatization agency the FNM has had its accounts in the State Treasury blocked since the week’s start due to the lost legal dispute with the firm Vansa. The FNM asked the Prosecutor General‘s Office to file an appellate review of the respective court’s decision but it refused to do so this week. On the same day, the FNM received an announcement from the distrainer Ladislav Szabo about the beginning of the distraint proceedings. FNM’s Miloslav Homola alleges that the executor must have known in advance about the Prosecutor General Office’s decision and took all steps necessary to block the accounts even before the FNM got the Prosecutor General Office’s decision. According to the FNM, the Prosecutor General’s Office and the executor organized their steps with the aim of harming the FNM as an institution acting in the public interest and secure a hefty sum for a shell company. It is not possible establish who is the owner of Vansa. The FNM says that the old dispute is fabricated and considers the verdict unjust and unlawful. The Prosecutor General’s Office ruled out that it had coordinated its procedure with the executor. Deputy Prosecutor General Dobroslav Trnka reiterated some time ago that he sees no reason to ask for an appellate review in this case.
The legal dispute with Vansa dates back to 1995. The company Promet sued the IRB bank for withdrawing its debt from an account that was not designated for it. The firm claimed it lost profit because of this, as it was unable to use the funds for trading. Vansa, which bought the claim from Promet, tried and „succeeded“ to prove the lost profit in court.
SITA