The trial of former director of the Agency for the Prevention of Corruption (ASK) Jelena Perović and her assistant Nina Paović continued today at the Higher Court in Podgorica, with the hearing of witnesses Ivan Batrićević, Momčilo Radulović and Zorica Ćupić. They are accused of abuse of official position and forgery of an official document.
Head of Financial Affairs at ASK, Zorica Ćupić, said during her testimony that she opposed paying for Nikola Lekić's business trip abroad because he was hired under a service contract.
"When it came to paying the invoice for Lekić, I drew attention to the fact that it could not be paid. I wrote that on the back of the invoice from the company "Intertravel Club" on December 8, 2021. All cash flows in ASK are recorded in the general ledger through the 'SAP' system, in accordance with the Law on Budget and Financial Responsibility, the instructions on the work of the State Treasury. I was the officer for certifying payment requests and had a deposited signature at the Ministry of Finance, as did my colleague Aleksandra Leković. The certification service guarantees that all payments made from the state treasury are made on the basis of approved and certified spending by directors Jelena Perović and Nina Paović," said Ćupić.
When asked by lawyer Nikola Martinović, who signs the payment request before it is approved?
"When it is printed from the 'SAP' system for verification, I or Aleksandra Leković first sign it and below it I place the product receipt form with the approved and verified invoice from the director. Then, along with the two-page document, it is submitted to Nada Stanišić for review, and then to the secretary for the ASK director, Jelena Perović, to approve the payment request. So, the payment request is signed last by the ASK director, because she has already approved it with her signature on the invoice, travel order or other document. Payment cannot be made through the 'SAP' system without it being previously verified by me or Leković. If the invoice is approved/verified by Perović or Paović, I did not return the payment requests. Because, who am I to return it when someone has approved the consumption," the witness stated.
Attorney Martinović then requested that his question be entered into the trial record.
"If Jelena Perović had gone to a sex shop to buy whips, boots or lingerie, and had provided you with invoices, would you have approved such a payment," the defense attorney asked.
"I would warn her that it is not appropriate to pay for the purchase of such products with state money and I would make a note. If she insisted on paying for it, I would normally approve the payment. I am not the person who assesses whether something is legal or not. I can warn about an irregularity in a good faith manner. Once I refused to pay for two phones for the president of the ASK Council Momčilo Radulović, as well as two bills for a mobile phone and one for a landline number. The director asked me why the bills were not paid and asked for a written explanation, which I submitted to Jelena Perović. Then Jasmina Maraš told me that I was not allowed to file that explanation. These phone bills for payment were certified by Paović with her signature, as approval for them to be paid. In my explanation, I wrote that the purchase of a phone cannot be paid through the phone bill. The requests for payment for two phones to Radulović were not paid, but only two bills, because after my explanation, they gave up on it, so they were left to be pay the bills for the two official numbers 069 and 067", stated Zorica Ćupić.
She added that all payment requests for Nikola Lekić have been paid, and that she does not know whether this was legal. She said that she made an official note on 08. 12. 2021, about his official trip abroad, and warned him because the amount was very large. She believes that an invoice cannot be paid for a person who is engaged under a service contract, as a member of an official delegation, which requires the consent of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
"I wrote the note on the invoice before the payment request was created. But the invoice was finally paid, because it was certified by Jelena Perović. In this case, I did not write a statement because I was not asked to do so. This request for payment of the invoice for Lekić had my signature, as the certifying officer. I do not know whether Perović and Paović were aware of my remarks. I never pointed out to the ASK Council any irregularities in the work of Jelena Perović and Nina Paović. I do not know the reason for the ASK director's official trips abroad and who she met with. Jelena Perović was on official trips during the national holidays of May 21 and 22 and July 13 and 14," the witness claims.
This was followed by remarks from lawyer Nikola Martinović.
“This is an instructed witness who, through his activities, commits criminal offenses that are prosecuted ex officio. The most characteristic example is the official note dated 8 December 2021, which I claim is a forgery. An invoice for payment of a business trip in the amount of 6.914 euros for Nikola Lekić was received by ASK the day before. She allegedly wrote on the back of the invoice that: 'A person under a contract for services may not be paid daily allowances, accommodation, or air travel, because this is an obligation relationship'. This invoice with the witness's signature was certified and paid on 8 December 2021. I find that this is a subsequent addition to the text in a document dated 6 December 2021, in the amount of 2.212,24 euros, which paid an invoice for the same real person, which was received by ASK on 1 December 2021. There is no "There are no notes, and payment was made for plane tickets for Nikola Lekić. My only conclusion is that if there was no statement on the invoice dated 1 December 2021, how did new information come to light about the same person, Nikola Lekić, and the same business trip," warned lawyer Martinović.
Radulović: I returned the phones
Momčilo Radulović, president of the ASK council, said during his testimony that he was in charge of two mobile phones, an iPhone and a Samsung, and that he returned both.
"I was given a Samsung to use. There were some minor problems with the operation, which were fixed at Dževad's service. Upon a call from ASK, I left the phone on the table in Nina Paović's office or I gave it to her. I don't remember. A lot of time passed. When it was returned, it was usable. I returned it but didn't sign anything. It was a year or two old. Whether ASK "wrote it off", I don't know. ASK called me to return the phone, as did all the members of the Council. In August 2023, all my authorizations ceased, and after eight months I returned the Samsung. As far as I know, 98 percent of ASK employees do not return their phones," the witness said.
Special Prosecutor Maja Janković objected to his testimony because he categorically stated before the SDT that he returned the mobile phone to the girl who works there, Nina Paović. She added that the case files contain evidence that the phone found at ASK was completely destroyed.
"He previously stated that ASK called him to return the phone. But the phone was returned only after the SDT requested documentation on all the items that the census commission had written off," the prosecutor said.
Paović confirmed that the phone was returned to her in working condition at the office. She added: "He personally returned the phone to me, physically undamaged."
Responding to questions from Special Prosecutor Jovan Vukotic, the witness said that there were some unpleasant experiences during a business trip to Egypt.
"The hotel was inadequate. It was a big security risk, because the hotel had no security. There was harassment from some people. It was a very strange place. I found out that the owner was some Ukrainian who didn't care about security," he explained.
Bonus video:
