In the case of Viator & Vektor, left a court called the lost Tycoon Pavček and was decided

Peter Pavček was abducted from his complaint that he had committed a criminal offense regarding the situation or trust, when he gave a decision on the filing of a Roman subsidiary to Izletnik Celje as a convener at the end a & # 39; May 2011. Zdenko Pavček, who was the director of Viator & Vektor Logistics Bojan Novak and Head of Excellence Celje Darko Šafarič, was released from the complaint that they helped Petru Pavčku to abolish the the situation.

The Assembly decided that such a decision was directed not only to the statements of the defendants, but also to the witnesses' certificates, as a court expert Marjan Pogačnik and documentary documents, such as annual reports and Other business documents, as well as the expert views of the research company, said Grandmother's President Judge Sabina Javornik.

As she said in the rationale of her criticism, find her & # 39; court that this is the case for a & # 39; Opposition to Viator & Vektor Logistics and Viator & Vektor Group opposed applications. The loan gave the loans to the companies, which they pay back by a division in a Roman company. "Although there was no cash flow, a share in the company may be considered payable," she said.

The procurator, Matej Oštir, called the appeal against such a decision. As he said to the media, his court impeded the evidence. "In my opinion, he overwhelmed the protection of the defendants and their favorable witnesses, and too little for the documents that were made in proof and in my opinion it is clear that the – promised pledges, "he explained.

Lawyer Matevž Lobnik, Petar Pavček's advocate, said the "expectancy" protection was left. "In my judgment, the judgment will be," he said. Accordingly, the test was carried out effectively, at least at the first time before the assembly, as the test was held in less than a year.

Ann, the prosecutor changed the test and, according to his judge and defense, he did not explain enough. Such an activity is lower than the line, according to its judge, "uncommon". Otherwise, he recommended that if the defendants were not abusive of the situation or helped to damage the creditors: "But it does not appear from the evidence that they would do that, and that they should be a direct goal, which did not happen, "said Javornikova S-

He said that Petar Pavcko was failing to work to benefit her; his company, but "the color objective was not proven", said the judge. The complaint is not a free movement from a Romanian company in the sum of 1.12 million real euros, the agreement to name the loan offered by the company Excursion in the system or company . the mother company, and depending on what loans were secured by a Roman company, which was not subsequently signed, found a & # 39; court.

The Senate found that the systems in the system help each other, in particular, that Pavka "was doing everything that was possible to make the company saved from falling ". According to her, the manager also confronted the violation of Viator & Vektor Logistics, Anton Jagodic, both of them in respect of Factor banka, committing personal assets as a serving.

Jagodic sent the accused against the fact that the ownership of his Romanian company was transferred to his / her. Izletnik company just before Viator & Vektor Logistics broke. But the settlement, however, said that there was a insurance in a Roman company before its Roman company was over. The date should be in agreement on this or when the Logistics was said to have been victimized, the prosecutor did harm them.

We can not prove this, apart from that, the move from the Group to Logistics at that time has already been agreed, but has not yet been implemented. Many of the things that were done in this system were in accordance with a verbal agreement, all the questioners confirmed that the system was very reliant. "Communication is not unusual," said the panel.

Among the defendants is a & # 39; Izletnik company, who intended to use this business, but this did not happen. As the judge found, some contracts were finalized at that time for the Hijacker, which was also confirmed when the Initiative successfully challenged the guarantee agreement in one of the cases.