The stork's nest belonged to my children, claims Babiš. But he won't show the papers to prove it
It would be enough for Andrej Babiš to be able to put an end to conjecture once and for all as to who owned the now famous Čapí hnízdo farm at the time it received a 50 million European subsidy. If it really belonged to his children, as the deputy prime minister and chairman of the ANO movement claims today, in order to dispel suspicions that in 2008 he deliberately obscured the ownership structure of the farm, thus achieving a subsidy for start-up companies in the role of a billionaire.
But Babiš does not want to publish the documents that would confirm his latest version, which he came up with the week before last in the House of Commons: that although he largely financed the Eurasian Nest, it was actually a project of his daughters and his partner's brother.
HN asked the Minister of Finance to show the documents in which the daughters are listed as shareholders of the farm in Benešovské, which cost a total of 450 million, the very next day after Babiš's speech in front of the deputies. ANO spokeswoman Lucie Kubovičová first stated that she would find out if Babiš would be willing to do so. Despite the urgency, however, it was not clear until yesterday whether Babiš was willing to do it or not.
At the same time, papers documenting who owned the shares of Čapí hnízd at the time the subsidy was granted most likely exist.
Who signed the power of attorney?
When the Regional Council of the Cohesion Region of Central Bohemia decided on the subsidy in the summer of 2008, Čapí had a nest of shares per owner. In other words, a form of ownership that has been abolished today. The magic of anonymous shares is well known: they belonged to the person holding them - they were not registered anywhere. Babiš's frequent lawyer Václav Knotek represented these hidden shareholders at the company's general meetings. For this, he had to have powers of attorney from Babiš's daughters, which lawyers and companies usually archive as a precaution.
In addition, under the Money Laundering Act, attorneys must maintain records that they have identified the clients with whom they enter into a business relationship. "According to the law, they must keep this information for ten years," warns Janusz Konieczny from the Anti-Corruption Foundation. So even on these confirmations, the names of Babiš's daughters should be listed. And one more detail: who owned the nascent luxury project should be ascertainable from the financial statements for the year 2008. However, it is missing from the commercial register. Data from other years are already there, but without the legally required data on who holds more than 20 percent of the share. On the other hand, it is true that many companies do not fulfill this obligation.
He wasn't telling the truth because of the family
Today, the case of the Hornbill's nest is divided into two closely related stories. First, there is the question of whether Babiš was lying again when he revealed the former real owners of the Nest in the House of Commons. He had not been telling the truth before: he claimed that he had nothing to do with the project until recently, although there were many indications that it was his company from the beginning. For example, it was Babiš's Agrofert who gave Hnízd an injection of 400 million. Agrofert also owned the land under construction. And the unusual building was designed by Babiš's favorite architect Jiří Javůrek. In addition, Babiš declared in Vít Klusák's TV documentary last year that the Sparrow's Nest was the best thing he invented. Until then, he said that he had only recently come to him. "Why didn't I want to say the names of the shareholders? Well, because I didn't want to endanger my children. Your family! This is the most valuable thing I have! That's why I didn't always express myself correctly. I couldn't tell the truth! Every parent must understand this!" Babiš emotionally explained to the deputies.
And secondly: who controlled the Sparrow's Nest eight years ago will also be an important finding for the Czech police and the European anti-corruption office OLAF, which are investigating the circumstances surrounding the allocation of the subsidy. Which, in theory, can in the extreme case end up with criminal prosecution, or a decision to return the subsidy - if the suspicion is confirmed that the concealment of the owners in 2008 was only meant to keep the Sparrow's Nest in the game for subsidies for small and medium-sized businesses. And that's why Babiš or his managers created a new company, formally unrelated to Babiš and Agrofert's money.
No audit or control indicated that the subsidy was used in violation of EU conditions," Babiš objects. "I am convinced that the ownership of Farma Čapí hnízdo had no impact on obtaining the subsidy. Even according to subsidy specialists, I personally, and not the company, could have been a XNUMX% shareholder of the farm. It's illogical, but it's true," says Babiš.
Formally fine, the law suffers
However, there is at least one important jurisprudence of the Czech court, which called similar tricks with ownership a violation of the law. Already in 2004, four years before the subsidy for the Čapí hnízdo, the Supreme Administrative Court dealt with the case of a businessman who complained about the overly harsh approach of financial officials (by the way, subsidies are governed by similar rules as taxes). The man founded a civic association and sent him money, thus reducing his tax base. But of these gifts then the club paid for trips to the entrepreneur's family, tickets to cultural events or the children's commute to school.
Outwardly, everything was according to the law - the businessman did not control the club. Even the judges recognized it, but still made the entrepreneurs pay the tax. "Because such behavior is in the nature of an abuse of rights," he explains attorney Jan Vych from the Vych & Partners office.
* 50 million crowns was the EU subsidy received by Čapí hnízdo farm. It is being investigated by the Czech police and the EU anti-corruption office.
* Why didn't I say the names of the shareholders? I didn't want to endanger my children, they are the most precious thing I have. Andrej Babiš, Minister of Finance and Chairman of ANO
Source: Hospodářské noviny
