The State Prosecutor's Office of Montenegro, especially the Special State Prosecutor's Office, doubled the number of financial investigations initiated during the first nine months of 2025, and in particular increased the number of financial surveys compared to the comparative data from 2024 and 2023.
Data from the Supreme State Prosecutor's Office show that as of September 30, 2024, 49 financial investigations were initiated against 151 natural persons and 21 legal entities, and 23 financial investigations against 82 natural persons, which shows a trend of increasing cases, considering that in 2024, 23 financial investigations and only four financial investigations were initiated.
The comparative data from the Supreme State Prosecutor's Office, compared to 2023, when 26 financial investigations were initiated, shows that the number of financial investigations launched last year doubled.
This data is provided in the VDP document on the Procedures of the State Prosecutor's Office in the procedures for the temporary and permanent confiscation of property gains acquired through criminal activity.
While waiting for a new legal solution that should lead to more efficient confiscation of assets acquired through crime, towards the end of 2025, the SDT announced that millions of euros worth of property in Montenegro belonging to former BiH Minister of Security Nenad Nešić had been seized.
In the introductory part of the document, the Supreme State Prosecutor's Office referred to the current legal framework according to which the state prosecutor is authorized to propose the confiscation of property gains, whether they were obtained through the commission of a specific criminal offense or through criminal activity (extended confiscation), but it is the court that issues a verdict on the criminal matter, and with it or after it, a decision on the confiscation of property gains or a decision on the permanent confiscation of benefits acquired through criminal activity.
"These facts, although prescribed by law and generally known, must be emphasized as the starting point for any analysis concerning the actions of a single body, specifically the State Prosecutor's Office of Montenegro. Namely, in order to form a comprehensive and objective picture of the work of judicial bodies, the roles of the State Prosecutor's Office and the court in the procedure for confiscating property gains must be demarcated, and in that sense, the success of the work must be assessed, that is, each individual must be held accountable," the State Prosecutor's Office's analysis states.
No convictions, no permanent confiscation
According to reports on the work of the State Prosecutor's Office, last year, immovable property of large size and value was temporarily seized, money worth several million was seized, and numerous and valuable movable property was temporarily blocked.
"However, the fact is that this dynamic was not followed by requests for permanent confiscation of property gains, but as already noted, their filing was conditioned by a previously issued final criminal verdict, which was not forthcoming," the VDT analysis states.
The document emphasizes that the State Prosecutor's Office has been showing greater proactivity and better results year after year in terms of actions aimed at confiscating property gains acquired through criminal activity, explaining the difficulties that accompany the parallel initiation of financial investigations and surveys.
"It is important to emphasize that financial investigation is one of the most complex segments of criminal proceedings, as it requires trained prosecutors, expert associates and full coordination of multiple institutions. In Montenegro, there is still a shortage of economic experts who would provide the necessary support to prosecutors, while property registers are outdated and often incomplete, which makes it significantly more difficult to prove the illegal origin of property," the analysis states.
For years, it has been noticed in the prosecutorial organization that financial investigations were undertaken mostly in cases of the Special State Prosecutor's Office (the number of financial investigations initiated before other prosecutors' offices was negligible), which is why the Supreme State Prosecutor Milorad Marković, with the aim of a more proactive approach by state prosecutors in the application of the Law on Confiscation of Property Gains Acquired by Criminal Activity and the establishment of uniform practice, issued Instructions for Proceedings in Cases of Financial Investigations and Investigations at the beginning of March 2025.
"The result of the implementation of the issued instructions and frequent communication between the contact point in the prosecutor's offices - managers - coordinator - Supreme State Prosecutor, is the initiation of surveys and investigations in other prosecutor's offices as well," the Supreme State Prosecutor's Office states.
Lack of experts
Financial investigations are also made more difficult by the fact that, apart from the Special State Prosecutor's Office, no other prosecutor's office employs economic advisors, who are a necessary support for the work of state prosecutors in conducting financial investigations.
"The instruction also pointed out the need to foresee this job position and employ economic experts in each prosecutor's office. Also, through an analysis of the need for training, levels and topics of training in this area were proposed with the aim of better training state prosecutors to conduct financial surveys and investigations, given that previous training has proven ineffective. However, in this regard, the role of police officers, who are responsible for discovering assets, and whose work also requires better education and practical training, should not be neglected, which must be the subject of planning by the Police Directorate," the analysis states.
The document explains that during financial investigations, especially those conducted before the SDT, the State Prosecutor's Office proposes to the court the imposition of temporary measures on property aimed at preventing the alienation or concealment of property while the proceedings are ongoing.
It is up to the court to decide whether the proposed measure will be imposed, and then how long it will last, or when it will be lifted.
"In this regard, it should be noted that in the majority of cases, courts accept the prosecution's proposals for temporary seizure of property, so in 2025, the state prosecutor's proposal was accepted in as many as 93 percent of cases, which confirms that the prosecution's work preceding the submitted proposal is thorough and in accordance with the law. Temporary measures of seizure of property are not a "success in themselves", but a legal instrument that secures property while the procedure is ongoing, while the final decision on permanent seizure is also made by the courts," the analysis explained.
This data, as stated, shows that the prosecution is gradually strengthening its capacities and contributing to the fight against crime, despite objective institutional and resource challenges.
"The fact is that there is a large discrepancy between temporarily and permanently seized property, but with legal restrictions that imply a decision exclusively by the court and a final criminal verdict in often complex cases with a large number of accused persons, the reason cannot be sought in the actions of the State Prosecutor's Office. This is especially true when analyzing the duration of the financial investigation and the merits of the prosecutor's proposals for the temporary seizure of property," the VDP document states.
Ratings depend on performance
The seriousness of the State Prosecutor's Office's approach to the work on confiscation of property gains is also demonstrated by the fact that the new Rules for the Evaluation of State Prosecutors and Managers from May 2025 stipulate that the number of initiated investigations and inquiries also affects the assessment of the State Prosecutor in the process of evaluating his or her work.
"The Prosecutor's Office supports the announced amendments to the law on the confiscation of property gained through criminal activity, within which it is expected to introduce the possibility of permanent confiscation of property without a final judgment. The aforementioned amendment would likely lead to a larger volume of permanently confiscated property, but this decision will also be within the exclusive jurisdiction of the court, which is ultimately obliged to ensure respect for human rights and to assess the justification of the request," the document states.
The European Commission (EC), in its latest report, warned that 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 is also added that the Special State Prosecutor's Office (SDT), the Special Police Department (SPO) and the Specialized Department of the High Court lack sufficient human resources and adequate infrastructure. It is stated 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 problems of a complete land cadastre, which hinders financial investigations and asset confiscation, and ensure that all available confiscation tools are used," the EC report for 2025 states.
Bonus video:
