The External Office for Criminal Affairs in Gostivar has filed criminal charges against A.S. (27), A.S. (27), A.S. (47), B.A. (54), I.B. (33), S.E. (48), V.R. (42), a Company for production, design, trade, construction and services from Gostivar, and a Company for geodetic works, design, engineering and consulting from Gostivar, on suspicion of committing the criminal offences of “illegal construction”, “forgery of documents”, “negligent performance of duty” and “abuse of official position and authority.”
The first, second and third reported persons — the latter being their mother — in their capacity as individual investors, during 2021 and 2022 carried out construction activities on their cadastral parcel in Gostivar contrary to the building permits issued by the Municipality of Gostivar.
The fourth reported person, B.A., manager of the Company for geodetic works, prepared a geodetic report that did not correspond to the main construction project and drafted a false document, which he used as a genuine document on behalf of the legal entity for design, engineering and consulting from Gostivar.
The fifth reported person, I.B., manager of the Company for production, design, trade, construction and services, prepared a Final Report on the completed technical inspection of the building, in which it was falsely stated that the construction had been carried out in accordance with the building permit and the main project.
The sixth reported person, S.E., although aware that the authorized construction inspector V.R. had recorded in an official report that an extension was being built outside the scope of the permit and that the deficiencies had not been remedied within the prescribed deadline, forwarded the construction documentation electronically on 03.10.2022 to the Real Estate Cadastre Agency, where the building was subsequently registered and a property title deed was issued.
The seventh reported person, V.R., initially drafted a report stating that the building had not been constructed in accordance with the permit and set a deadline for the deficiencies to be remedied, but later failed to carry out a follow-up inspection in accordance with the decision, thereby enabling the investor to put the building into use.