They don't care about millions, if they think they're running away: The court differs on guarantees for the release of Mijajlović and Lazović

Aleksandar Aco Mijajlović withdrew several million in untraceable cash in one year, and with that and the money he allegedly illegally acquired by smuggling cigarettes, nothing prevents him from fleeing the country and possibly indemnifying the companies that guaranteed his freedom with 1.100.000 .XNUMX euros.

The Special State Prosecutor's Office (SDT) stated this in their appeal against the High Court's decision to release Mijajlovic on bail, which was confirmed by the Court of Appeal.

The Prosecution claims that the second-instance court did not value the fact that the failure of the guarantee would not pose any problem for the companies that guaranteed for the alleged head of the criminal Grand Clan, but also for him to return the money in that case...

On the other hand, the same Appellate Court reasoned much differently in the case of deciding on the bail offered for Petar Lazović - stating that even more than nine million euros is not a sufficient guarantee to deter the former policeman from fleeing, that is, that the loss of so much money "would not have more significant consequences for the business" of companies that guaranteed with their assets that they would not interfere with the continuation of criminal proceedings...

Mijajlović left the remand prison on April 24, and was arrested on February 19 by order of the SDT, which accuses him of forming a criminal group for cigarette smuggling with another person.

Former secret service agent Petar Lazović is still in custody, and in several criminal cases he is accused of closely cooperating with the Kavačić criminal clan.

Complaint by SDT

The Special Prosecutor's Office, in its appeal against the decision to release Mijajlović, states that the conclusion of the investigating judge that Mijajlović's custody should be replaced by bail and supervision measures is unclear and unsupported by facts.

"Therefore, it is indisputable the value of the real estate that was given as security for the amount of the guarantee, and that this value, in the total amount of 1.112.900,00 euros, represents a significant value from the aspect of reasoning that can be expected from the majority of citizens. However, as it follows from the circumstances and evidence obtained in the course of the proceedings so far, due to their origin and structure, the mentioned immovable properties do not have such importance for the defendant Aleksandar Mijajlović as well as for the guarantors. This prosecutor pointed this out to the investigating judge in the trial regarding the proposal for bail, but the court did not deal with these issues," the prosecution's complaint states.

They said that the judge's statement - that the bail providers are persons close to the defendant: that Miladin Mijajlović is the brother of the defendant's uncle, Andrea Ubović is his godfather, and Veselin Kovačević is a family friend, means nothing in the absence of elaboration...

"It is insufficient to be able to assess how the eventual failure of the surety would affect the defendant and the guarantors, because even in the event of failure of the surety, the business activities that the defendant obviously has outside Montenegro and the defendant's realized income on any basis, relativize the importance and severity of the loss of property with with which the defendant would face the guarantors in the event that the guarantee fails".

Prosecutors argue that from the official financial statements for the year 2023, it can be seen that the company "Easy Drive" is 100 percent owned by Mijajlović and that in the same year it generated business income of 5.695.798 euros and income from extraordinary business of 7.734,462 euros.

"In the period from June 2023 to February 2024, Easy Drive paid the defendant Aleksandar Mijajlović a dividend in the amount of 3,67 million euros, which the defendant withdrew in cash from his account at CKB Bank and there is no further trace of the money flows. In addition, in 2023, the defendant received 1,5 million euros from the legal entity 'Bemax' (from January 17 to March 1, 28) based on the transfer of shares. And these funds were withdrawn from his current account in a relatively short period of time, and there were no more recorded financial transactions from that account that could be used to monitor the flow of money. Therefore, the foregoing clearly indicates that it is about the amounts of income that the defendant realized in just one year, which, along with the financial benefit gained from the commission of the criminal offenses charged against him, significantly and multiple times exceed the amount of the offered bail, and thus render the significance meaningless and relativistic what kind of guarantee does he have both for the accused and for the guarantors who are in a close relationship with him and the severity of the loss of property with which the accused would face the guarantors in the event that the same fails, bearing in mind that the stated amount can easily compensate them if will be necessary", they state from SDT.

The panel of the High Court presided over by Boris Savić rejected their appeal as unfounded.

Insufficient warranty

However, in the case of Lazović, the Court of Appeal states that the bail amount of EUR 8, which was offered for him by the companies "Razvršje" and "Gufo", is not a guarantee to deter the accused from fleeing.

They certainly cite other reasons - the seriousness of the crimes for which he was accused, but also the fact that his own sister lives in Italy...

"It is the well-founded conclusion of the first-instance court that the offered bail is not a higher priority for the defendant than his fear of the outcome of the proceedings and the threatened punishment in the event that he declares himself guilty, that is, that his interest in staying in Montenegro and responding to the court's summons is not overriding the punishment he can expect in the event that he is found guilty in view of the threatened punishment for the criminal acts charged against him, so this court is also of the opinion that the loss of the offered bail by third parties is not a sufficient guarantee, because it would not affect the defendant so much to dissuade him from escaping," the court decision reads.

They explain that "Gufo", as one of the guarantors, on the last day of 2023 owned fixed assets in the amount of 14.234.781 euros, and total assets in the amount of 18.966.986 euros. At the same time, they write "Razvršje", as the second guarantor, owns real estate, plants and equipment worth 2.390.550,00 euros, and the total assets of the company amounted to 9.338.992,00 euros, the capital of the company amounted to 5.396.281,00 euro...

"And on 31.12. In 2021, the total assets and capital of the same amounted to 14.735.273,00 euros, while from publicly available data sources (electronic cadastre) it appears that the same is the owner or co-owner of a large number of immovable properties on the territory of the whole of Montenegro, and the eventual forfeiture of the guarantee, upon finding of this court, would not have significant consequences for the operations of these legal entities and their property status", they add.

However, the court states that the amount of bail does not correspond to the seriousness of the criminal role that, as it is reasonably suspected, Lazović played in the implementation of the criminal plan: "Given that the defendant, as it is reasonably suspected, became a member of a criminal organization whose task was to act according to the orders of the organizer of that criminal organization, Zvicer Radoja"...

That's not a small number

Rejecting SDT's appeal, the High Court stated that the bail of 1.112.900 euros is a sufficient guarantee that Mijajlović will not escape, but also that the property given in the name of the surety is significant in relation to the total assets of the companies that pledged it.

"Contrary to the allegations of the appeal, the investigating judge correctly determined that the conditions stipulated by the law were met... for the release of the accused with the offered bail... It represents a sufficient guarantee that the accused will not hide or run away and thus hinder the conduct of the criminal proceedings, and that will respond to the summons of the court, which the defendant himself promised in the statement he gave before the investigating judge," the court's decision reads.

Contrary to the allegations of the SDT's appeal, the text states, this panel assessed the total property of the guarantors... and concluded that the property given in the guarantor's name, in relation to their entire property - significant...

"So... this court is of the opinion that the defendant Aleksandar Mijajlović has a greater interest in staying in Montenegro and responding to the court's summons than the punishment he can expect in case he is found guilty in the proceedings against him, while for which the eventual loss of the offered bail from the bail giver is a sufficient guarantee, because it would influence the defendant to deter him from fleeing".