While awaiting a new legal solution for more efficient confiscation of criminal assets, Montenegro has not permanently confiscated anything this year, and last year only one vehicle was confiscated.
The only example where significant property has been permanently confiscated in recent years is a procedure that was initiated almost two decades ago and concluded in 2023 with a plea agreement.
This can be concluded from the report of the Prosecutorial Council (PC) and the insight into the documents, which it analyzed. Center for Investigative Journalism of Montenegro (CIN-CG).
The European Commission (EC), in its latest report, warns that the results in confiscating criminal assets are poor, and that Montenegro needs to ensure efficient confiscation and confiscation of such assets, through systematic monitoring of money flows, implementation of special investigative measures and consistent application of extended confiscation. It also adds that the Special State Prosecutor's Office (SDT), the Special Police Department (SPO) and the Specialized Department of the High Court do not have sufficient human resources or adequate infrastructure. It states that the SPO does not have specialized initial and continuous training in the field of financial investigations, and there are no regular courses on this topic in the curriculum of the Police Academy.
"Despite the increase in the number of opened financial investigations, the number of confiscations has remained low. Montenegro must address the problem of an incomplete land cadastre, which hinders financial investigations and asset confiscation, and ensure that all available confiscation tools are used," the EC report for 2025 states.
In recent years, TS reports list a large number of temporarily seized property and money, which, based on the experience of completed procedures, were most often returned to the owners, and the state paid huge compensation.
Director of the MANS research center Dejan Milovac He points out to CIN-CG that our institutions continue to repeat the same pattern - presenting temporarily seized property as a final success, even though it is already clear that a large portion of that property will eventually be returned to its owners.
"Unfortunately, we are witnesses that the financial investigations so far have not significantly prevented organized crime from continuing to carry out its activities almost unhindered," Milovac said.
This happens, he explains, because proceedings are initiated based on insufficiently high-quality investigations, weak evidence, and without consistent implementation of financial investigations, which should be the foundation of every serious case.
"When a temporary seizure is rejected in court, no one in the institutions bears responsibility, and citizens pay the compensation. That is why today we have a situation in which temporary seizure serves more for media impression than for the actual fight against crime," Milovac emphasizes.
Neither the SDT nor the State Property Administration responded to CIN-CG's questions about how much temporarily seized property has been returned to its owners after final acquittals or dismissals of indictments in the last ten years.
The Supreme State Prosecutor's Office (SPO) told CIN-CG that they too cannot provide detailed statistics on property that has been returned to its owners, but that the Supreme State Prosecutor Milorad Marković, in March this year, issued binding instructions to prosecutors on how to proceed in financial investigations, which will include an analysis of all cases currently under investigation.
The most famous cases of return of temporarily seized property were cases brought against Safet Kalić i Duško Sarić, who had their property temporarily seized in 2011, then estimated at 40 million euros, which was returned to them after acquittals for money laundering. Kalić and Šarić are still pursuing several lawsuits, seeking millions in damages for lost profits and the alleged deterioration of their property while it was in the hands of the state. No one in the judiciary, not even the Property Administration, has been held accountable for this.
Mercedes, assets of two companies, marijuana and 805 euros seized in six years
The Supreme State Prosecutor's Office (SPO) confirmed to CIN-CG that no property will be permanently seized in 2025.
According to a report from the Prosecutorial Council (PC) from last year, in 2024, a Mercedes Benz vehicle, type S600, was permanently seized due to criminal activity.
In 2022, 805 euros were permanently confiscated, and in 2021, nothing, and in 2020, 61 packages of marijuana.
In a 2023 case, several properties were permanently seized from legal entities convicted of money laundering. The TS report also points out that the assets are worth significantly more than the estimated seven million, as the estimate was made in 2007.
This is a case in which the High Court in December 2023 accepted an agreement between the SDT and two companies, “PM Holding” and “Paradase Properties”, to punish the two legal entities for money laundering by closing them down and seizing their assets. Since the owner of the companies has passed away, the prosecution and the court concluded that the company representatives did not know that he was buying real estate with illegally obtained money from drug sales, and therefore they were not held accountable. Real estate in Perast, Morinje, as well as the surroundings of Bar, Podgorica, Danilovgrad, Herceg Novi and Nikšić was seized.
The Property Administration's report for 2023 states that it is a house with an area of 172 m2, one non-residential space, two yards and a garage in Perast. In Morinj, a house of 122 m2, a yard and a pasture. Near Herceg Novi, several forests, meadows, pastures, yards and an orchard. In Ćurilac near Danilovgrad, a house, two outbuildings, yards, fields, meadows and forests, and in another village near Danilovgrad, a house of 113 m2, an outbuilding of 46 m2, a yard, meadows, but also an uncategorized road. In the villages near Nikšić, houses with a total area of 432 m2, yards and fields, meadows, pastures, forests, but also barren land, and near Grbavac, barren land, forests, fields, orchards and vineyards. In the vicinity of Bar, houses of 152 m2, auxiliary buildings of 77 m2, yards, pastures, meadows, forests, orchards, as well as buildings under construction, ruins and stone quarries were seized.
The report of the State Property Administration for last year states that a 74 m2 house in Sutorina near Herceg Novi was seized in this process.
The Property Administration did not answer CIN-CG about what they do with temporarily and permanently seized property, how much property has been permanently seized in the last three years, or how much temporarily seized property they have had to return over the last decade.
Repeated attempt to seize property without a verdict
Under current regulations, property in Montenegro cannot be seized without a final conviction against its owner.
Officials in Montenegro have been promising for years to regulate the area of property confiscation so that it is efficient, but we have not yet gotten beyond initiatives.
The latest announcement by the Ministry of Justice is that it will propose an amendment to the Law on Confiscation of Assets Acquired through Criminal Activity, so that they can be confiscated regardless of a final criminal verdict, but also to consider the Italian model adapted to Montenegrin conditions and strengthen the tax system and property control.
The Ministry of Justice told CIN-CG that a working group will be formed in the coming days to address new solutions for property confiscation. They added that the potential introduction of the Italian model will also be considered.
"What we are constantly doing is improving the legal framework so that the confiscation procedure is in line with international standards, but also so that all obstacles in practice pointed out by courts and prosecutors' offices can be resolved," the Ministry of Justice points out.
They also state that amendments to the Criminal Code are underway, and that only after receiving comments from the European Commission will they propose the possibility of introducing the criminal offense of illicit acquisition of wealth. They say it is still too early to talk about the expected effects of the new criminal offense in practice.
Milovac reminds us that in the past we have had reform packages that remained only at the level of initiatives, because they were stopped in the face of resistance from those who would be most affected by the effective confiscation of property.
"Montenegro continues to face organized crime groups whose material and logistical capacities far exceed the resources the state allocates to the security sector. In such conditions, models that depend solely on a final verdict are simply not enough," says Milovac.
Therefore, he believes that special confiscation procedures that do not depend on a verdict do not have a realistic alternative for Montenegro.
"We are not talking about literally copying the Italian model, but about an adapted version that is in line with our constitutional order and the practice of the European Court of Human Rights. But, without such a solution, it will be difficult for us to make a breakthrough," Milovac adds.
Returning to the pure, original "Italian model" is difficult to implement today, Milovac estimates, not because it would not be effective, but because we have not built an institutional framework that would carry it out.
"Italy has specialized courts, strong financial investigators and a professional agency for managing confiscated assets. These capacities do not exist to a sufficient extent in our country," said the director of the MANS research center.
It is necessary to form specialized units that deal exclusively with identification, monitoring and seizure of assets, along with a depoliticized, professional and technically trained prosecution service that will know how to present such cases, he adds.
"Finally, Montenegro needs a strong and independent institution for the management of confiscated property, because without adequate management, property deteriorates and the effect of confiscation is lost," warns Milovac.
The Ministry of Justice says that the working group will also consider the need to strengthen the capacities of the State Property Administration or form new institutions.
The management also kept fish, furniture, juices
Reports from the State Property Administration state that, among other things, she stored lake fish, juices, beer, snacks, furniture, jeans, sneakers...
The Property Administration, Milovac estimates, does not have the capacity to manage confiscated property at the required level, primarily because it does not have enough professional staff, appropriate procedures, or clear legal authorizations.
"Effective management of confiscated property is a specialized activity and requires a fully dedicated, professional and technically equipped institution. As long as confiscated property is treated incidentally, as a side job of a service, it is difficult to expect any serious results," Milovac said.
CIN-CG previously wrote about how EU countries, as well as neighboring Albania, handle the permanently confiscated property of criminals, using it for kindergartens, schools, and the rehabilitation and work of crime victims...
Poor quality of financial investigations
The Western Balkans Court Monitoring Report, which includes monitoring of court proceedings from 2021 to 2024, concludes that the inability to find assets that would be seized or frozen for the purpose of direct or extended confiscation of proceeds of crime indicates that the financial investigation methods currently used are not effective.
“Given the high rate of financial investigations on the one hand and the low number of cases with seized assets on the other, there are concerns regarding the capacity of prosecutors to effectively initiate and conduct financial investigations, with the ultimate goal of applying extended confiscation,” the Report states.
The project team concluded that the reason for the low asset seizure rate is the poor quality of financial investigations and the very limited number of qualified financial investigators, “while the alleged perpetrators appear to be very skilled at concealing their illicit gains.”
“During consultations, prosecutors also acknowledged that the training they had received on financial investigations and asset forfeiture was of limited use in uncovering criminals’ well-concealed illegal assets,” the report added.
They recommend that the Prosecutorial Council consider creating more favorable and attractive conditions for the work of financial investigators, and that when evaluating the work of prosecutors, the results in conducting financial investigations be taken into account.
Bonus video:
