One of the co-defendants in the Trenta trial construct, Branko Kastelic, gave a very clear defence on Wednesday, which he has been using for a decade to defend himself against various attempts by the deep state to sentence him in the matter. So far, his defence has not been summarised or reported on by any of the major mainstream media. In his defence, he revealed the full extent of the conspiracy against Janez Janša and his co-defendants, and how far-fetched the accusations are. In the first part, we will look at how the price of the Trenta farmhouse sold by the leader of the opposition, Janez Janša, was formed.
Branko Kastelic started by saying that he has not committed any of the crimes he is being accused of. He did not abuse his position by signing the contract for the purchase of the property in Trenta, since, he says, it is demonstrable that he had full powers as a director to sign such a contract, as confirmed by all three members of the Supervisory Board at the time.
Agricultural land was sold at ten times the price
The detailed analysis he presented to the Court in 2014 already showed that the purchase of the property was within the normal business risks, or even more – that the purchase was of a plot of land with a building site in the Trenta area, which also by its location fell within the strategic market orientations, at a price of 9 euros per square metre – and at that time, the company Kastelic ran, IMOSU, had not even purchased agricultural land below the price of 100 euros per square metre, so the purchase of the property in Trenta could indeed reasonably be assessed as a good purchase. All this is also evidenced by the realised sales used by the various valuers as the basis for the value.
IMOS got less because of the demonisation in the media
Kastelic explained that IMOS was not able to sell the property at the purchase price, but instead got 18.750 thousand euros less than it paid for it ten years ago, partly due to the fact that a construct was created around the property that discouraged buyers from purchasing it, and partly due to the fall in prices on the property market from the time of purchase to the time of sale (it is important to note here that property prices fell drastically after the financial crisis).
As part of his evidence, Kastelic denied the report of the Commission for the Prevention of Corruption (KPK) of January 2013, in which the Commission problematised the purchase of a plot of land in Trenta, on the basis that the property was purchased for more than the appraised value of the property, as determined by the Surveying and Mapping Authority of the Republic of Slovenia (GURS).
Elikan’s article was deliberately ignored
Kastelic pointed out that at the time, journalist Elikan published an article in the newspaper Finance, in which he showed, on the basis of a comparison with the realised sales in Trenta, that the price for this property was approximately at the level of the average prices in other realised sales according to the data of the Surveying and Mapping Authority (it was the Finance web portal on which the generalised appraisal was published, which the Commission for the Prevention of Corruption summarised as the market price). Kastelic finds it interesting that Elikan’s article was not highlighted by any media outlets afterwards, while it was constantly stressed that the land was worthless.
High demand for real estate in 2007
When he was summoned to court, Kastelic himself started to assess the value of the property – both on the basis of the IMOS data and on the basis of the state of the property market and business policies at the time, or in IMOS, compared to other property purchases by the same company.
On the basis of a concrete analysis, he was able to thoroughly refute all the allegations made in the judicial construct.
In his analysis, he highlighted the environmental conditions at the time and stated that at that time (2006 and 2007), there was a high demand for real estate, and prices were steadily rising so that at that time, they had already exceeded 6,000 euros per square metre in elite locations.
He attached an extract from a report prepared by the Surveying and Mapping Authority of the Republic of Slovenia, which stated that real estate prices had started to skyrocket in 2004. Using the IMOS sales and purchase figures for that period, Kastelic illustrated the relationship between the IMOS sales and purchase prices, and the prices recorded by the Surveying and Mapping Authority, which were more than 21 times higher than the latter’s estimates. The Trenta property was sold at a price only 6.7 times higher than the Surveying and Mapping Authority valuation, i.e. much lower than the average prices of properties sold at the time!
Comparison with agricultural land
What is particularly interesting are the comparisons with prices for agricultural land, which was sold at prices multiple times higher than that of the land in Trenta.
Kastelic also mentioned that IMOS was buying more agricultural land at the time, but he himself had not seen any prices below 180 euros per square metre.
The data show that there were six purchases of agricultural land (in 2006 and early 2007), two of which did not materialise; one was not finalised because the buyer, before signing the final contract, increased the price above the originally agreed price of 240 euros per square metre (which was 30 times higher than the Surveying and Mapping Authority’s estimate in 2014 – in 2006, such estimates were not even considered, as it was clear that they were unrealistic), and the other transaction was not finalised because the Municipality of Ljubljana exercised its pre-emption right – the agreed price with the seller, in this case, was 220 euros per square metre, which was 70 times higher than the estimate of the Surveying and Mapping Authority.
For the other four concluded contracts, the prices were 180 euros per square metre, 190 euros per square metre, 254 euros per square metre, and 257 euros per square metre, respectively, and the Surveying and Mapping Authority exceedance ratios were 62 times, 23 times, 11 times, 79 times!
The sale price for the disputed purchase of the property in Trenta was therefore 20 times lower than the lowest transaction for the six agricultural sites. It should also be noted that the land in Trenta is in the middle of the Triglav National Park.
(TO BE CONTINUED: in part 2, we will write about the prosecution’s unsubstantiated allegations that IMOS did not carry out a valuation or a project showing what was to be done with the land…)
I. K.
