Korekt Ltd.
26 november 2020
Korekt Ltd. Sarajevo received a request to publish a retraction from a contractor in charge of the façade works, Euro-profil commerce Ltd., on 09 November 2020, which states several points regarding “Analysis of delayed construction of Sarajevo Tower” that was published by Korekt Ltd. on 28 November 2020, and which are allegedly “incorrect and untrue”.
You can read the original of the retraction here.
Korekt Ltd. in the retraction by Euro-profil noticed some additional indication that point to the existence of additional business fraud by Euro-profil and illegal collusion with the authorities, so Korekt Ltd. on 12 November 2020 requested that Euro-profil commerce Ltd presents evidence that represent basis for their claims, so they can be compared with evidence in possession of Korekt Ltd, all in purpose of correctly informing the public. You can read the official request here.
Euro-profil commerce Ltd delivered irrelevant response, but they did not deliver requested documentation, their response can be read here.
We are going to further analyse only claims by Euro-profil commerce Ltd Sarajevo related to the Analysis of delayed construction of “Sarajevo Tower”, one by one, compare them to documentation and a material basis, and evaluate accuracy of each claim.
All other claims, reviews, attacks on a personal level and speculations Korekt Ltd is not going to comment, because it considers that the abovementioned are used with purpose of changing the subject from indisputable evidence and facts that Korekt Ltd published in its Analysis, which can be read here.
EURO PROFIL’S STATEMENTS:
Euro-profil commerce:
In order to eliminate any suspicion that unsatisfied buyers might have for a reason, and is concerned with Your “Analysis” we would like to point out several false statements. Namely, in the act of issue you state that:
“We signed a Contract of delivery of materials for “Sarajevo Tower” with Percon Ltd Sarajevo on 16 April 2019, while that contract had been signed on 07 February 2019, according to their bid from 05 February 2019”
Explanation by Korekt Ltd Sarajevo:
Euro-profil Ltd and Percon Ltd signed a contract for a delivery of materials on 16 April 2019, which Korekt Ltd published in its Analysis, and proof can be found by clicking here.
This evidence has ben presented in the evidence file of the criminal procedure lead by the prosecutor Sanin Bogunic. The question is how the prosecutor has this contract dating from 16 April 2019 in his possession, if Euro-profil Ltd, in the retraction claims that the contract was signed on 07 February 2019?
Considering that Euro-profil signed the contract on 16 April 2020 (the contract which does not have any indications of being an amendment contract, or that the previous contract is not valid) and considering that the retraction negates that date and states 07 February 2020 as the correct date, it is obvious and with a high level of certainty can be concluded that additional “fixing” of evidence for the criminal procedure happened.
Korekt Ltd in its Analysis of delayed construction of Sarajevo Tower already thoroughly elaborated how ANS Drive Ltd as the general contractor, and Euro-profil Ltd as the subcontractor for façade work undertook several unethical and counter contractual proceedings in order to legalize work that was not according to contract, and this new detail about the existence of two different contracts for a purchase of materials, and one of them shows up for the first time in the criminal proceedings, is just another argument that supports the Korekt Ltd’s thesis that the authorities have to investigate who, how and when has fixed the evidence.
Conclusion: Euro-profil Ltd in this segment did not manage to disprove the Analysis with arguments, but they showed new evidence for revealing fraud and contract manipulation.
Euro-profil commerce:
“Our workers were not trained nor qualified for jobs in question, which is contrary to the fact that our workers posses certificates from STO Austria Company and Baumit Austria of competence in plastering works, as well as the certificate from the Tuzla Mining Institute for assembly and disassembly of cranes and scaffolding (without knowledge of doing the jobs in question our workers could not do any of the jobs we had been doing so far – our buyers can look our Company’s reference list at our web page)
Explanation by Korekt Ltd Sarajevo:
The published Analysis of delays in construction of Sarajevo Tower did not analyse which certificates workers of Euro-profil commerce posses, or other projects outside the Sarajevo Tower. The Analysis of delays in construction of Sarajevo Tower refers only to this residential-business building, and we are going to remind of only a small part of warnings directed to Euro-profil commerce Ltd from their co-operators and the general contractor ANS Drive.
Technical director of ANS Drive, Avdija Custovic issued an early warning on 18 April 2019 to Euro-profil commerce Ltd, which among other thing stated “On 15 April 2019 it has been determined that you do not have enough human resources, planned number of people working to comply to the dynamic of work is 14, and You have only 6 hired workers.”
The firm in charge of delivering building materials (Percon) on 30 April had warned Euro-profil commerce Ltd of “leaking of the storm water all over stored material StoLevelDuo, which is as well as any other cement-based product susceptible to moisture. The same fact causes material clumping.” Euro-profil commerce had been warned about a breach of Contract, article 4, paragraph 1, which states the following: “Your obligation is to ensure adequate storage of the delivered material”.
Besides storage, Percon concluded: “incompetently made product was not used in time, which points to incompetent workers”, that is a breach of the Contract under the article 4, paragraph 1.
Percon Ltd representative sent the following e-mail: “Euro-profil Commerce Ltd does not have workers adequately qualified for working on façade systems because we have proven functionality of our product directly at the structure, and the material, when made “in front of us” performs regularly, and when nobody is around the material is not good. Or, alternatively this might be an attempt of gaining a financial benefit by the contractor “Euro-profil Commerce Ltd” in a way that the superior product is changed under false pretenses and the inferior product is used, and the financial gain is acquired at the same time short-changing You as an investor of the project..”
Conclusion: Euro Profil Ltd did not manage to disprove statements from the Analysis of Korekt Ltd
Euro-profil commerce:
“Our Company does not have a license for installation of this material even if we did install cheaper materials. From the fact that You state in your letter that we have a license to approve material that was signed by the project manager Sedin Halilagic and other parties involved, we can conclude that this is a case of false and tendentious presentation of facts. Regarding that we would like to point out to our buyers that by the command of the investor dating from 24 July 2019 (after sample was examined), and by recommendation of the manufacturer STO, more expensive and finer finishing layer has been installed, without any additional compensation.”
Explanation by Korekt Ltd Sarajevo:
ANS DRIVE LTD and Euro-profil Ltd had sent license of approval of material on 07 November 2019, and the investor had never approved the abovementioned license because it was not according to the contract. Entries by the supervisor into a construction site diary dating from 12 November 2019, 14 November 2019, 15 November 2019 and 14 December 2019 support the statement that the supervision body had ordered ANS Drive and Euro-profile to stop installing the material that was not according to the contract, and the abovementioned contractors ignored that order.
The form signed by the project manager Sedin Halilagic, mentioned by the Euro-profil Ltd is a form dating from 07 June 2019, and it is not a form that approves (against the contract) installed STO Silkolit, but it is a form that approves installation of isolation-styrofoam (EPS)
By clicking here you can see the form.
Korekt Ltd in the Analysis of delays in construction of Sarajevo Tower already elaborated this situation in which ANS Drive and Euro-profil illogically claim that Sedin Halilagic signed off on the Stikolit material on 07 June 2019, although that is the form approving styroform (EPS), but they started claiming this only after their request for change of material sent in November was not approved, so five months later.
Investor’s order dating from 24 July 2019 (inspection of sample on the structure) does not refer to the final layer of the façade regarding improperly installed STO Stikolit material, but refers to a selection of a colour of the façade by the investor. You can see a proof/records of selection of the colour here.
Conclusion: Incorrect and manipulative statement by Euro-profil commerce
Euro-profil commerce:
“A bank guarantee could not have been acquired in time because our Company did not meet the conditions for the guarantee to be issued. However, it is true that the issuing of the guarantee for the duration of the contract was originally agreed, after which the Smart Invest Company, via Zlatan Hamza Velagic, insisted on a delivery of the guarantee for the duration of 1 year. On 26 February 2019, Zlatan Hamza Velagic sent us an e-mail containing the text that was supposed to be included in the guarantee, and the letter of intent template (a copy of Montain Ltd). In practice all of the contractors delivered their guarantees to investors within 2-3 weeks. Our Company also delivered the guarantee within the deadline, on 15 March 2019, while the investor was late with the advance payment within 7 days.
Explanation by Korekt Ltd Sarajevo:
The statement that the original agreement was for the guarantee to be issued for the duration of contract (6 months) is not correct, which can be seen from the article 7 of the Contract for façade works.
Article 7: Client will not carry out an advance payment in case that a subcontractor has not delivered an advance bank guarantee and a performance-based bank guarantee before the payment. The subcontractor will deliver an advance bank guarantee in benefit of “Ans Drive Ltd” Sarajevo and “Smart Invest Ltd” Sarajevo as the beneficiaries of a bank guarantee in 50:50 ratios, unconditionally chargeable with a clause that prevents any objections, and to the first call in the amount of the advanced payment, issued by the bank and acceptable for both beneficiaries of the bank guarantee.
Subcontractor will deliver a performance-based bank guarantee in benefit of “Ans Drive Ltd” Sarajevo and “Smart Invest Ltd” Sarajevo as the beneficiaries of a bank guarantee in 50:50 ratios, unconditionally chargeable with a clause that prevents any objections, and to the first call in the amount of 10% of the total value of the contract, for the duration od 12 months, issued by the bank approved by the Banking Syndicate (Sberbank BH and Sparkasse Bank Plc. BiH) according to a contract for syndicated loans.
The contract between Euro-profil commerce Ltd and the general contractor ANS Drive, with an authorization by Smart Invest, was signed on 07 February 2019. Euro-profil commerce Ltd does not take any steps to secure its bank guarantee for more, which is the condition for getting the advance payment, for more than two weeks.
After Sberbank notified Euro-profil commerce Ltd that they need additional documentation, Pinjic’s wife Aida, the director of Euro-profil commerce reaches out to Zlatan Hamza Velagic from Smart Invest Ltd.:
“Dear,
regarding the bank guarantee, as instructed by your colleague, I am forwarding you an email from our banker, and asking You kindly to send us required documentation. Thank you in advance, best regards!”, states an email that Aida sent to Velagic on 26 February 2019.
The same day, 26 February 2019, Velagic responds and sends required documents, as well as template text for guarantees and the letter of intent:
“Dear,
required documentation is in Attachment, contract number 127 and annex IX, and contracts of cession will be drafted later, when the conditions are met – according to temporary situations. We are using this opportunity to deliver you the template for the bank guarantee and the letter of intent. We are available for any additional questions!”, states an email from Velagic sent to Pinjic’s wife on 26 February 2019.
Pinjic’s wife sends another email on 27 February 2019 to Velagic: Dear, drafts of the guarantees are in the Atachment, I am asking You to review them and point out any necessary changes. Kind regards!”
Velagic responds on 28 February 2019 to the email: “Dear, changes regarding the period of an advanced bank guarantee are necessary, so that the period is 12 months from the date of receiving the advanced payment and a validity of advanced bank guarantee. Please have in mind a contractual obligation to provide a certificate from the bank – the letter of intent following the template we already sent you. We are available for any additional information. Best regards.”
Euro-profil commerce got its advance bank guarantee and a performance-based bank guarantee from Sberbank on 14 March 2019. Euro-profil commerce got its bank guarantees five weeks (35 days) after signing the Contract. We agree with the statement by Euro-profil that some of the subcontractors got their guarantees in two or three weeks, some even earlier.
The timeline of five weeks for getting their guarantees in the beginning determined delays in the façade works, which can be read in further detail in the “Analysis of delayed construction of Sarajevo Tower”.
Once we agree with Euro-profil commerce Ltd, about the fact that the advanced payment was seven days late. Korekt Ltd based on documents determined that the Ans Drive as a general contractor was late with processing the advance payment, because it is indisputable that Euro-profil sent their advance invoice to Ans Drive on 15 March, and Ans Drive sent it to Smart Invest seven days later. Smart Invest was not late with processing the payment.
Conclusion: Incorrect claim by Euro-profil about the duration of the bank guarantee given in the contract.
Euro-profil commerce:
“Therefore, in order not to give any importance to Your (for investigations and criminal proceedings) irrelevant report and releases, we are not going to participate in discussions regarding whose fault the current situation is, but we are asking you to publish all of the studies you allegedly had done before the…
Explanation by Korekt Ltd Sarajevo:
This is a very interesting statement from Euro-profil ltd and it points to suspicions of collusion between Euro Profil Ltd and judicial institutions.
In fact, the retraction by Euro Profil refers to Korekt’s “Analysis of delayed construction of Sarajevo Tower”, which did not have intention to deal with investigations and criminal proceedings, but to explain the chronology of events that lead to delays, which is the most important question for 420 buyers. However, Korekt Ltd did completely separate analysis of ethical oversights in the criminal procedure lead by the prosecutor Sanin Bogunic, and Korekt Ltd filed criminal charges on 15 September 2020 against the prosecutor and criminal investigator for hard negligence at work, which proved that Elmedin Pinjic from Euro-profil gave false statements to the Federal Police when filing charges against Elvedin Mahmutovic and Sedin Halilagic from Smart Invest.
Why is this so important?
If we circle back to the earlier statement by Euro-profil: “but we are asking you to publish all of the studies you allegedly had done before the…” we have a suspicious situation because the only occasion Korekt Ltd had written anything similar was in a criminal complaint that was handed over to the Cantonal Prosecutor’s Office of Sarajevo Canton, so the question arises how Euro-profil Ltd has any knowledge of what Korekt Ltd has written in the criminal complaint?
“REMARK: Korekt Ltd has in the light of fair, objective and truthful informing of the public about this judicial-police scandal prepared ten times more extensive and detailed analysis of every aspect and detail of this case from the contents of this criminal complaint, because of the economy and transparency of the material we decided to file the criminal complaint in this form, but we are certainly available to the authorities at any given time to deliver specific analysis of each and every aspect of this case.”
Considering that Korekt Ltd has not published the criminal complaint, and that the aforementioned complaint must have been kept confidential by the competent prosecution offices, because it does not make any sense if the reported prosecutor Sanin Bogunic, criminal investigator Zoran Drasko and the false accuser Elmedin Pinjic from Euro-profil came into possession of the filed criminal complaint and that way familiarized themselves with the evidence presented by Korekt Ltd, which essentially means that the prosecution does not have any intention to review the filed criminal complaint in a credible and responsible manner.
Korekt Ltd will, because of the unprofessional behaviour of the judicial institutions, consider publishing the entire text of the criminal complaint, in order to present the facts to the public, because the due respect to the judiciary must have been given only if it justifies its public purpose and when it works in interest of truth and justice, and when people accused come to the possession of the criminal complaint, that means that the corruption is present and that it is prepared to cover up the case.
Conclusion: The fact that the competent prosecution offices are so unreliable is so frustrating that the question does it makes any sense reporting a crime if, when the crime is reported, nobody would take any action arises, and what is even worse the reported individuals will be informed with what evidence you reported them.
Euro-profil commerce:
One of the statements by Euro-profil commerce Ltb is a debt to Juka, that is the MTH-ARI firm, which was the first choice for the façade works and only after they backed out the job was given to Euro-profil Ltd, which is not going to be explained here because it deserves a specific text, considering that it is of interest to investigative bodies as well as to the general and the expert public, which is going to be published soon at Etika.ba
To be continued…
