Although the expert finding of the defense in this procedure claims that VMRO-DPMNE in the period in question had other revenues from membership fees and the budget that were sufficient to buy other party premises located throughout the country, the court at the request of the prosecution without providing expert report made a decision to confiscate them.

How did the prosecution and the court determine that the contract in question was illegal because it was disproportionate? Because according to the Law on Assessment of Property and the Methodology for preparation of assessments, for future construction, ie future real estate, it is not possible to prepare an assessment of its market value. How do they know the value of the partner’s building in the contract? It may be a billion euros, so the part they give to VMRO-DPMNE will be a single-digit percentage. How do they know what the value will be, can anyone give such an assessment of future real estate, it is contrary to the law. If the legal entity illegally got rich through tenders, through financial crimes, why has the prosecution not initiated any criminal proceedings for the same so far?, Mickoski asks.

This assumption, he says, is unproven and there is no material evidence.

That is why we mention again, the party is not accused in this procedure. But for the private person and his property there is no procedure or decision for confiscation of anything. The court found that BETON was damaged, and the owner of BETON at the last hearing before the verdict was announced, told the court that the contract concluded by his company with VMRO-DPMNE was profitable for them, says Mickoski.