If we have to describe the case “Josi” briefly it will be very difficult. It resembles an ancient Greek tragedy in several acts. A story in which the deficit of justice and the violations committed by magistrates are the key to tragedy. This case can easily become an example of the most popular vicious practices of the Bulgarian judiciary: informal links with magistrates are used to influence against the transfer of assets, entire cases disappear from the court registry, and data on crimes go to the trash. See the details in the joint investigation of BRRD and DG BOETS.
Video: Dimitar Stoyanov, Maria Nikolcheva
In the “first act”, in 2013-2014, Georgi Tsolov Georgiev found that his partner in the dairy “Josi” – Simeon Petkov Prisadashki drained the company. This happened through the writing of payments to Georgi Tsolov Georgiev himself, which, according to him, were reflected in the accounting documentation of the company with falsified signatures. According to Georgiev, around that time Conviction took out a loan without his knowledge on behalf of the company.
Georgiev began to inspect the company’s activities and found cash accounting and revenue evasion. In a hidden camera recording, his partner Simeon Prisadashki admits that there is a difference between the company’s real and accounting profits. “The accounting is some, the real ones are different,” Prisadashki said. That in itself sounds like a confession of concealment of income. The partner explains that the companies in the dairy industry work at a loss according to their annual financial statements. There is no market logic in such behavior it justifies the assumption that profits are widely hidden in the industry.
The recording is on Georgiev’s own initiative and is not a viable SSD, operated by an order from a competent judge. However, at a later stage it was constituted as evidence in a criminal case. In order to solve his friction with Prisadashki, Georgiev decided to refer the matter to the prosecution. Naturally, this does not happen in the channel order. True to the Balkan traditions, Georgiev is looking for connections and friends. He turned to his old friend from the time of mature socialism Stoimen Geshev. His son, who grew up in front of Georgiev’s eyes, was at that time a regular prosecutor in the Sofia City Prosecutor’s Office.
Geshev – father is a former head of the traffic police in one of the metropolitan police stations. Georgi Georgiev’s competitors and opponents say his businessman was a volunteer before the changes. Georgiev denies that he was Geshev’s agent, but says that he was involved in road safety and worked together with Stoimen Geshev. The latter even saved him from prosecution in the late 1970s, when Georgiev traded tapestries.
Georgiev claims that on the advice of Ivan Geshev, he hired lawyer Velimir Atanasov. The relationship between the two is traceable. Between 2006 and 2008 Atanasov was a judge in the Criminal College of the Sofia District Court, and Geshev was a prosecutor at the District Prosecutor’s Office. Velimir Atanasov does not deny that he represented Georgiev, but rejects the thesis that he was recommended to Georgiev by Ivan Geshev.
“Mr. Georgiev and I met in 2013, I can’t tell you exactly which month. And in terms of representation, it started much later. At the initial moment we were rather in the consultation phase, as Mr. Georgiev had problems with his participation in “Josi” Ltd. They were with Prisadashki at 50 by 50 share ratio. Mr. Georgiev had no control over the enterprise, neither in its commercial nor in its production part, and there were doubts that the company was being drained. That is why he wanted to take action to take control of the company.”
Velimir Atanasov did not remember under what circumstances they met Georgi Georgiev, but remembered that it was not through Ivan Geshev. “Surely someone recommended me. But I’m not too sure if and I know who that is.”
The “Ivan Geshev” relationship is not the only point on which Georgiev and Atanasov disagree in their claims. According to the businessman, Ivan Geshev was initially on his side and recommended quick action so as not to sweep away the traces of the draining of the dairy. Simeon Prisadashki, however, turned out to be more than close to the then head of the Sofia City Prosecutor’s Office – Emilia Rusinova. At that time, she was the direct head of Ivan Geshev. Before BIRD.BG Georgi Georgiev revealed that Ivan Geshev had met with Prosecutor Rusinova to ask her to launch investigative actions against Prisadashki. Rusinova, however, was very close to Georgiev’s partner and refused to assist in his “finishing”, Geshev told the businessman after the meeting.
When preparing a previous publication on the subject, we contacted Emilia Rusinova on the phone asking whether she is close to Simeon Prisadashki. She did not deny, but refused a specific answer, saying: “I do not give interviews, please do not contact me for such things.”
“We are family acquaintances” – this is how Prisadashki, again in a telephone conversation, characterized his relations with the deputy administrative heads of the Sofia Appellate Prosecutor’s Office and former Sofia City Prosecutor – Emilia Rusinova. He denied that he had received support from Rusinova in his trade discussions with Georgiev for the company “Josi”.
On the other hand, Georgiev claims that the prosecutor in question cooperated with Prisadashki when their company fell into a sanctions list of companies that cannot absorb EU funds. There was evidence of the “scam” around the purchase of a machine in the time of SAPARD.
“We were on a blacklist of these meat processors who were brought in during the time of Georgi Parvanov. Then I remember that there was a big list and they put us on that list for some machines. After all, she cries, with one call she took us out. There were about 10 li, 15 li meat processing and only one or two dairy. We were on that list.”
A check in the registers of the BIRD.BG shows that the company successfully absorbs European funds under SFA measures.
After hitting a wall with the “family acquaintance” Rusinova, Georgiev realized that the solution to his problems would not happen only through criminal law. In a “second act”, Georgiev decided to exclude Prisadashki, on the grounds that he was working against the interests of the company. In practice, on the one hand, Stoimen Geshev enters the company – Ivan Geshev’s father Simeon Prisadashki comes out on the other. According to Velimir, Atanasso in Georgiev needed Stoimen Geshev to support him in his conflict with Prisadashki within the General Assembly.
Georgiev, however, claims to have transferred a stake in “Josi” to Stoimen Geshev in order to get support from his son Ivan Geshev, who is a prosecutor with a rapidly developing career.
On August 11, 2014, Georgiev convened and held a general meeting of JOSI Ltd. and expelled Simeon Prisadashki as a partner. At the end of the working day on August 25 of the same year, a check in the Sofia City Court found that the decisions of the General Assembly had not been appealed within the 14-day period provided for by law. Including from Prisadashki.
On August 27, Georgiev submitted for registration with the Registry Agency the decisions taken by the General Assembly, including the expulsion of Simeon Prisadashki as a partner and his dismissal as manager of the dairy.
On the same date, Prisadashki filed a statement of claim with entr. No101057/27.08.2014 for suspension of the registration proceedings for the registration of the fact that he is excluded as a partner. On August 28, commercial case 5694/2014 was initiated on the application and at 09:55:38 through the random case allocation system it was allocated to Stanislava Kazakova. This was established by the Chief Inspector at the Inspectorate Teodora Tochkova.
Judge Kazakova terminated the case due to lack of evidence that Simeon Prisadashki had appealed within a legal deadline the decisions of the General Assembly of JOSI Ltd. on August 11. The dismissal of the case was an undesirable result for Prisadashki. A statement of claim with the same entry number 101057/27.08.2014 initiated a second case. This happened on August 29, 2014 and was under No. 5701/2014. At 09:37:14 it was assigned to Judge Jacqueline Komitova. This was also established by Teodora Tochkova. Judge Komitova dismissed the case on the same ground.
Again, this does not work for the needs of Simeon Prisadashki. On August 29, under unclear circumstances at 10:39:29 a.m., a third case was initiated with the same statement of claim with entry No. 101057/27.08.2014. Commercial case 5703/2014 was assigned to the judge Petar Teodosiev. In the third attempt, the following mistake is made in a hurry – case No5701/2014 is again initiated. Then 1 just remakes myself 3. Commercial Case 5701/2014 was reopened on 29. 08. 2014 at 14:36:51 and was deleted from the registers at 14:51:00. This was established by Chief Inspector Tochkova.
Judge Petar Teodosiev decided the case 5703/2014 in favor of Prisadashki, but the Court of Appeal ordered the registration proceedings to be continued. The grounds of the AC Sofia for annulment of the decision of Judge Petar Teodosiev is the same as the reason for termination of the act. No5694/2014 etc. No5701/2014 – lack of evidence for a case for annulment of the decisions of the General Assembly of JOSI Ltd. taken on 11.08.2014. The attached copy of a statement of claim by Prisadashki for appeal of the decisions of the General Assembly of JOSI Ltd. does not contain data on the case initiated and its allocation to a judge.
There is no evidence that Judge Petar Teodosiev has sent the enforceable court decision of the Sofia Court of Appeal to the Commercial Register. To date, this court order has not arrived for implementation in the TR. This fact allows Simeon Prisadashki to continue to be a partner and manager of JOSI Ltd. and to take actions that exclude Georgiev as a partner in JOSI Ltd.
On 28.08.2014 Simeon Prisadashki filed with the registry of the Sofia City Court an application with Ent. No101511/28.08.2014. The object of the protection sought by Simeon Prisadashki is the cancellation of those taken on 11. 08. 2014 decisions of the General Assembly of JOSI Ltd. concerning its exclusion.
On 29.08.2014 on this application was initiated item No 5702/2014 and on the same day at 09:40:01 the system for random allocation of cases allocated it to Judge Ivaylo Rodopski, who terminated the case due to an expired limitation period. Actions are being taken to circumvent the judicial act of Judge Rhodope. A new application was registered in the registry office with entr. No101511/28.08.2014. On this application was initiated item No5704/2014 and at 10:40:46 am it was assigned to Judge Angelina Gerginska. This case is already with another plaintiff and another subject-matter. This was established by the Chief Inspector at the Inspectorate Teodora Tochkova. On 29.08.2014 at 14:39:15 2014 was formed for the second time and deleted at 14:51:17. Probably, Simeon Prisadashki is given the opportunity to register a claim in the registry office of the SCC retroactively. It is under reg(ent) No97314 of 12.08.2014. This entr.No is most likely a number of a letter entered into the SCC and since no case is initiated under it, therefore no one will follow it.
In order to prove the “truthfulness” of the application and the date of the entry number to the application, a payment document for a fee of BGN 25 should be attached. in the account of the Sofia City Court from the date 12.08.2014. This document is missing from the covers of the case. From letter ex. NoRD-21-OJ-207/14.03.2019 of the Sofia City Court found that the Court’s accounting on 12.08.2014 did not receive the BGN 25 in question. The letter was sent to the Specialized Prosecutor’s Office after a probe was launched in the case, following a signal by Georgiev.
Georgiev’s lawyers believe that an anti-dated statement of claim uses the number of a case already completed under the inventory of the SCC. And so a second case appears, with the same number, but already with a different subject and plaintiff. This is Simeon Prisadashki, and the case is for the annulment of the decisions of the General Assembly of JOSI Ltd. In favor of this hypothesis, the findings of the Inspectorate also weigh. Georgiev and his lawyers are convinced that a trial was simulated in which the papers in the case were served not on the defendant JOSI Ltd., but on the plaintiff Simeon Prisadashki. The civil case No. 5502/2014 was decided on 13.10.2015 in favor of Prisadashki. With Decision No. 1640/2015, however, in the legal world there is already a decision with the same number and it concerns another civil case – 469/2014 on the inventory of the SCC.
At second instance, the case was again won by Simeon Prisadashki. However, AC Sofia – City is talking not about civil No. 5502/2014 on the inventory of the Sofia City Court, but about a commercial one with the same number. The Supreme Court of Cassation does not allow an appeal against the decision of the AC Sofia. The latter court held that it was a matter of t.d. No 5502/2014 on the inventory of the SCC.
In the “third act”, which goes in parallel with the second, the cases on another controversial point run – the entry of Stoimen Geshev as a partner in JOSI Ltd. According to the initial agreement between Georgiev, Geshev and Velimir Atanasov, the father the Prosecutor General was to receive 20% of the dairy. According to Georgi Georgiev, at that time it was estimated at between BGN 10 and 12 million. This means that Stoimen Geshev’s share is equal to at least 2 million. At the end, Geshev – father received only 2% of the company’s capital, which at that time meant at least 200,000.
According to Georgi Georgiev, Velimir Atanasov at some point “played” for Sentencing and sabotaged the transfer of 20% of JOSI Ltd. to Stoimen Geshev in order to compromise him. Whether it is so or Georgiev himself has decided to transfer 2% to his old friend, but the amount of 200,000 is impressive.
The minimum assets transferred to his father set Ivan Geshev badly, Georgiev believes. When the percentages turned out to be 2, not 20, pressure from the prosecution began against Georgiev.
Prisadashki attacked Stoimen Geshev’s entry into the company in court, even with only 2%. The SCC upheld Prisashki’s appeal, but the SAC revised the decision at first instance. The Court of Appeal proclaimed Stoimen Geshev as a partner in JOSI Ltd., and the Supreme Court of Cassation upheld the decision of the appellate court.
Thus, with an effective decision of the Supreme Court of Cassation, Stoimen Geshev is a partner in the company. This decision is also not entered in the Commercial Register due to circumstances. However, the entry in this case has only informative, not constitutive effect. In practice, the decision of the court creates rights and obligations for the parties, and the registration is to inform third parties.
In this line of thought, the claim that neither Ivan Geshev nor Stoimen Geshev own shares in “a dairy company” can only be defined as a lie.
In the “fourth” last act JOSI Ltd. was declared bankrupt. The proceedings were initiated before the SCC, on the basis of an application submitted by “Giosi Logistic” Republic of Romania, because of complete non-performance of a contract. JOSI Ltd. had not established the necessary practice in the production of cheese according to a Bulgarian recipe, which would have a market on Romanian territory that meets the standards of the country where the white cheese will be sold.
“In itself, the contract that was concluded between Josi and Jossey Logistic, in my opinion, was null and void for lack of an object that could be realized, and this conclusion of mine was based on the way in which the obligation of the contractor was agreed in the case of “JOSI Ltd.” Romanian counterparties are looking for 35,000 euros, which is an insignificant amount compared to the company’s turnover. Separately, the bankruptcy petition itself, according to him, was filed irregularly. There was no valid power of attorney to assign representation to a lawyer. There is no trace of the obligation, such as an invoice or a pro-forma invoice, for example. “It was established that this obligation, which was allegedly not fulfilled by JOSI Ltd., does not correspond to a valid legal obligation.” While the bankruptcy proceedings are ongoing, other holders of monetary obligations to JOSI Ltd. are also assigned to the original creditor and petitioner. The chief representative of these other creditors is MONICA 871, owned by Prisadashki’s wife. The company legitimizes itself as a creditor of a monetary claim to JOSI Ltd. under a cession agreement concluded between it, the company and UniCredit Bulbank. The amount of the claim that MONICA 871 EOOD has against JOSI Ltd. tilts the scales sharply, in favor of the claim that there is insolvency. About 1,400,000 leva. Georgiev claims that it was withdrawn by UniCredit Bulbank through his head, without his knowledge and with falsified signatures. This claim is confirmed by several experts. Some of them are included as evidence in a court case.
Despite the many disturbing moments, including attempts to offer bribes to experts in the case, the company was declared bankrupt. However, the company does not stop its commercial activities.
Each of the storylines of this case could be a separate scandalous story that sounds almost absurd, but official documents confirm the credibility of the facts presented. There is a lot of evidence of different crimes, but the prosecution did not collect enough data on any to press charges and maintain it in court. This can mean only two things – in Bulgaria we have the most incompetent and stupid prosecutors in the world or that in the prosecution was systematically stretched “umbrella” over Simeon Prisadashki and Georgiev was crushed. And the second hypothesis seems far more likely.
Щом сте стигнали дотук, вероятно вече си задавате въпроса как се финансира този журналистически проект.
Отговорът е: Финансира се от журналистическо чекмедже, в което читателите оставят по нещо, ако им е харесало съдържанието.
Чекирайте се и Вие!
При възможност, станете наш редовен спомоществовател с опцията Чекирай Редовно. Това ни помага да предвиждаме бъдещи разходи и да планираме дейността си за месеци напред.
БРРД Ежемесечно / BIRD Monthly
БРРД Eднократно 2023 / BIRD One time 2023
Account owner: Assoc. DRJI
Owner address: 16 bvd. Saint Germain, 75005 Paris
IBAN: FR76 1820 6002 0665 0617 8570 619
This post is also available in: Български (Bulgarian)