A fraud that lasted years: how the Mayer family was stripped of their property a second time

What happens when someone is robbed not only of their property, but also of their trust?

In a new episode of the House of Justice project, Federico Pignatelli della Leonessa reveals the details of an alleged fraud that did not occur during wartime or revolution, but in modern-day Slovenia. It is a story that raises serious questions about the functioning of the justice system, accountability, and the protection of the most vulnerable.

This is no longer a story about confiscation after World War II. This is a story about how the Mayer family was harmed once again, decades later.

Trust that was abused

At the centre of the story is the relationship between the Mayer family and their lawyer, Tjaša Andree Prosenc.

According to Federico Pignatelli, his mother Doris Mayer trusted the lawyer completely. He describes how the lawyer was supposedly kind to her, embraced her, and assured her that she would protect the family's interests.

But behind the scenes, something entirely different was allegedly taking place.

His mother reportedly did not understand the documents she was signing. They were all in Slovenian, and she allegedly did not know that she was signing key legal acts transferring ownership.

Moreover, according to him, she did not even know that she had been formally appointed as the director of the company managing the family's property.

How the fraud allegedly unfolded

Federico Pignatelli describes a scheme that allegedly enabled the transfer of property to the lawyer.

In 2004, his mother allegedly signed documents through which the apartment was transferred to the lawyer. On paper, it appeared that the purchase price had been paid.

In reality, however, something else allegedly happened.

According to his account, the lawyer first transferred approximately 250,000 euros from his mother's bank account, to which she had power of attorney, to her own account in Switzerland. She then allegedly presented the same amount as payment for the apartment purchase.

This means the payment was allegedly made with the victim's own money.

Federico Pignatelli describes it very clearly: there were allegedly two key steps. First the taking of the money, then the taking of the property.

Money in Switzerland and tax questions

He also highlights the transfer of funds to an account at UBS bank in Switzerland.

According to his claims, the amount exceeded 250,000 euros, which also raises questions about possible tax irregularities.

This part of the story further underscores the severity of the accusations and the broader context of the alleged conduct.

The story expands: a business premises and the lawyer's son

The story did not stop at one apartment, according to him.

In 2007, a business premises of approximately 74 square metres was allegedly sold in a similar manner. The buyer was reportedly the lawyer's son, who now operates a business in the premises.

Pignatelli points to several contentious elements:

• The buyer allegedly claimed to have paid 400,000 euros in cash for the premises;
• The payment was allegedly made to a person unconnected to the ownership;
• The contract allegedly referred to a smaller area, while a significantly larger one was actually used.

Later, the same tenant allegedly took over an additional business premises without paying rent.

How the fraud was discovered

For many years, Federico Pignatelli did not know what was happening.

He lived abroad and communicated regularly with the lawyer, who assured him that everything was fine. He occasionally came to Slovenia to check on things, but had no reason for suspicion.

The turning point came when he learned that renovations were being carried out in the apartment without his consent.

That was when he began to examine the documentation in depth and gradually discovered what had allegedly taken place.

Legal proceedings and a sense of powerlessness

When he tried to take action, he allegedly faced a new obstacle.

The court reportedly did not consider his arguments on their merits, but instead dismissed the claim due to the statute of limitations. The key question was when the deadline for asserting rights begins to run.

Pignatelli points out the illogic of such an interpretation. In his view, the deadline should begin to run only when the injured party learns of the fraud, not when it was formally carried out.

Otherwise, he says, it would be too easy to conceal fraud.

A system that enables injustice

He is also particularly critical of the role of lawyers and institutions.

He says he hired a legal representative who was allegedly not willing to take decisive action against the system. Due to the slow gathering of evidence, key deadlines were allegedly missed, further weakening his position.

As a result, he was reportedly only able to file a civil lawsuit, not a criminal one.

The absurdity of the legal system

In the end, Pignatelli draws attention to a broader problem.

If the legal system allows someone to sell your property without your knowledge, and then after a certain period invokes the statute of limitations, this in his view represents a serious systemic failure.

Such a system, he says, does not protect victims but enables perpetrators to avoid accountability.

Why this story matters

The story of the Mayer family is thus not merely an example from the past.

It is a warning.

A warning that justice must not depend on whether an individual discovers fraud in time. And a warning that without an effective system of protection, anyone can become a victim of similar conduct.

The House of Justice project is therefore not just Federico Pignatelli's personal fight.

It is a call for a change in a system where justice will not be limited by formalities, but will be grounded in truth.