ZAGREB, May 28 (Hina) - Tuesday's parliamentary debate on the Report on the Privatisation Audit saw Croatian Democratic Union (HDZ) MPs accusing the coalition government of conducting a pre-election, undemocratic campaign against the
HDZ, while the coalition accused the HDZ of using the debate to politicise an important problem.
ZAGREB, May 28 (Hina) - Tuesday's parliamentary debate on the
Report on the Privatisation Audit saw Croatian Democratic Union
(HDZ) MPs accusing the coalition government of conducting a pre-
election, undemocratic campaign against the HDZ, while the
coalition accused the HDZ of using the debate to politicise an
important problem. #L#
Individual deputies - mostly those from the HDZ and the Social
Democratic Party (SDP) - joined in a heated discussion focusing on
whether it is possible to prove that during the rule of the HDZ
government state property was stolen and whether, despite the
statute of limitations, illegal acts in privatisation can be
punished.
HDZ deputies reiterated that privatisation was executed in keeping
with the law adopted unanimously in 1991 in the Sabor, which meant,
as Vladimir Seks claimed, that the SDP also voted for the law.
SDP MPs, however, said that damage had already been done by 1991 and
that the privatisation of public property had already been
completed by 1991. They said that unconscientious work, harmful
contracts and other types of misuse in business deals had occurred
even before the law was amended in 1997.
SDP MPs claimed that some illegal acts disclosed by the audit could
be prosecuted despite the statute of limitations.
Milanka Opacic (SDP) said that the findings of the State Auditor
indicated that the origin of money used to purchase certain
companies had not been investigated. She suggested that the Auditor
should have a more active role in preventing money laundering and
that amendments to the Banking Law should be adopted because banks,
she said, should not have the right to not disclose information in
cases where illegal acts were obviously committed. She added that a
probe should be conducted to see in whose drawers certain charges
connected to illegal privatisation lay untouched - in the State
Prosecutor's Office or somewhere else in the judiciary.
Nenad Stazic (SDP) said, among other things, that the first
impression by citizens about privatisation during the HDZ rule was
that this was a highway robbery. "Justice means that anyone who
gained property without paying for it should return it, and those
who robbed the state should end up in prison, while those who
changed the Penal Code to make it less strict, fearing they might be
prosecuted one day, should be tried and suffer the political
implications related to this," Stazic said.
The HDZ bench proposed that the Sabor adopt conclusions binding the
State Audit Office to submit, within a period of 60 days, a list of
physical and legal persons who in the privatisation process became
the owners of more than 5 percent of any company, including the name
of the company, the nominal value of shares, the ownership
percentage and the amount and origin of payment.
The HDZ bench proposed that within this period the Audit Office
should submit the names of beneficiaries of so-called manager's
loans, the names of the banks and bank directors who approved those
loans, the amounts concerned, and other details about those loans.
The SDP bench will suggest that the Sabor bind the State Audit
Office to submit, within 30 days, a report on existing violations
and criminal acts related to privatisation.
The bench also recommends that the State Prosecutor be bound to
report to the Sabor about the charges pressed within the same
period, while the government has been requested to propose changes
to the existing legislation thus enabling the efficient
prosecution of privatisation crime.
(hina) sp rml sb