Former President of the Supreme Court Vesna Medenica was sentenced to ten years in prison in the first instance, announced the president of the council of the Higher Court in Podgorica, Judge Vesna Kovačević.
Vesna Medenica was acquitted of charges of creating a criminal organization, and was convicted of two separate cases of unlawful influence, both related to accepting bribes and influencing court decisions.
She was ordered to refrain from leaving her place of residence and her passport was confiscated.
Her son Miloš Medenica was sentenced to a single sentence of ten years and two months in prison for creating a criminal organization, the extended criminal offense of smuggling, two criminal offenses of unlawful influence through aiding and abetting, as well as for obstructing the production of evidence.
The court ordered his detention due to the risk of flight. He was acquitted of charges of illegal possession of weapons and facilitating the consumption of narcotics by several people.
Vesna and Miloš Medenica did not attend the verdict.
According to Judge Kovačević's verdict, both must pay 50.000 euros each.
The defendants, except for Vesna Medenica, the brothers Bojan and Marko Popović, and Vasilije Petrović, must jointly and severally pay the state damages of 2.736.715,89 euros.
Special Prosecutor Vukas Radonjić said that the Special State Prosecutor's Office (SDT) is satisfied that Vesna Medenice and her son Miloš have been convicted, but that they will appeal the length of the sentence.
Verdicts pronounced for other defendants
Ivana Kovačević was sentenced to four years and six months in prison for accepting bribes and creating a criminal organization, along with a fine of 15.000 euros.
Stevo Karanikić and Marijan Bevenja were sentenced to four years in prison each for bribery and creating a criminal organization.
Goran Jovanović was sentenced to a combined sentence of three years in prison and a fine of 10.000 euros for creating a criminal organization and accepting a bribe, because the second criminal offense was committed for selfish reasons.
Jovan Miković was sentenced to a single prison sentence of three years and ten months for creating a criminal organization and the continued criminal offense of smuggling, and was also given an additional fine of 10.000 euros for smuggling.
Goran Jovanović was sentenced to three years for accepting bribes and creating a criminal organization, along with a fine of 10.000 euros.
Vojin Perunović was sentenced to a single sentence of two years in prison and an additional fine of 2.000 euros for the same two criminal offenses.
Petar Milutinović was sentenced to three years in prison and a fine of 5.000 euros for the extended criminal offense of cigarette smuggling, and was acquitted of the charge of creating a criminal organization.
Milorad Medenica was sentenced to three years and two months in prison, along with a fine of 3.000 euros.
Darko Lalović was sentenced to a year in prison for the aggravated crime of unauthorized drug sales, but it's not like he did it as a police officer.
Luka Bakoč was sentenced to one year and four months in prison, Marko Popović to one year, and his brother Bojan to six months in prison.
Radomir Raičević was sentenced to one year and four months in prison, and Vasilije Petrović to one year, and 150.000 euros were confiscated from him.
The company "Kopad Kompani" was sentenced to the termination of its legal entity for the criminal offense of creating a criminal organization, because, according to the court, the company's activities were entirely in the function of committing the criminal offense of creating a criminal organization for which it was charged, in order to conduct a liquidation procedure in relation to that company, and then its deletion from the Central Register of Business Entities.
The defendants are required to pay the incidental fines within three months of the verdict becoming final.
During their closing arguments, special prosecutors Jovan Vukotić and Vukas Radonjić requested that Miloš and Vesna Medenica be sentenced to twenty years in prison and fined 100.000 euros each, which, they said, would send a message to Montenegrin society, but also to the European Union, that engaging in crime does not pay.
The SDT believes that the evidence presented "unequivocally indicates" that Miloš Medenica's criminal organization had influence over the judiciary and other important social factors, which, they state, can be concluded from SKY evidence, secret surveillance measures, telephone communications of the former head of the judiciary, witness statements, but also from the record of the search of Vesna Medenica's house.
Defense lawyers requested an acquittal for the defendants.
During her closing remarks, Vesna Medenica said that she was ready to give her life for Montenegro, but "never to anyone."
In addition to Vesna and Miloš Medenica, the accused are Marjan Bevenja, Goran Jovanović, brothers Bojan and Marko Popović, Vasilije Petrović, Luka Bakoč, police officer Darko Lalović, Vojin Perunović, Milorad Medenica, Marko Vučinić, Petar Milutinović, Ivana Kovačević, Radomir Raičević, Stevo Karanikić and Milica Vlahović Milosavljević, who is being tried in a separate proceeding. The indictment also includes Bakoč's company "Kopad Kompani" from Nikšić.
The Special State Prosecutor's Office (SDT) charges them with the criminal offenses of creating a criminal organization, the aggravated criminal offense of smuggling, the aggravated criminal offense of giving a bribe, accepting a bribe, unlawful influence and incitement to unlawful influence, abuse of official position, unauthorized production, possession and distribution of narcotics, facilitating the consumption of narcotics, unauthorized possession of weapons and explosives, grievous bodily harm, and obstruction of evidence.
"Acted contrary to the values she was obligated to protect"
In the explanation of the first-instance verdict, judge Vesna Kovačević provided detailed reasons.
"When deciding on the type and amount of the criminal sanction, the court took into account all the circumstances from Article 42 of the Criminal Code of Montenegro, in particular the degree of guilt, the gravity of the committed criminal offense, the consequences that the offense produced, as well as the personality of the accused and her social position at the time of the commission of the offense. The court particularly appreciates the fact that at the time of the commission of the criminal offense, the accused was performing the function of the President of the Supreme Court of Montenegro, therefore the highest judicial function in the state, which, by its constitutional and legal role, implies the protection of legality, independence of the judiciary, the fight against corruption and strengthening public trust in the judiciary. Instead, the accused, using the authority and influence arising from that function, acted contrary to the fundamental values that she was obliged to protect, which represents a grave abuse of office and a serious violation of citizens' trust in the judiciary. The court assesses such conduct as an extremely aggravating circumstance, because the criminal offense was not committed by any citizen, but by a person who was called upon to be a symbol of the rule of law, legality and integrity of judicial power," she said. judge.
The violation of public trust in this case, she added, has much broader and deeper consequences than usual, as it undermines the very foundations of the judiciary and the rule of law.
"By imposing a high prison sentence, the court had in mind the need to achieve general prevention, i.e. to send a clear and unambiguous message that no one is above the law, regardless of the function, position or authority they hold in society. This approach is fully consistent with the Constitution of Montenegro, which establishes the principle of the rule of law, equality of all before the law and the responsibility of public office holders, as well as with European legal standards, including the case law of the European Court of Human Rights, according to which judges and judicial office holders must enjoy the trust of the public, and their dishonest behavior may justify stricter sanctions precisely in order to protect the reputation of the judiciary and the democratic order," said Judge Vesna Kovačević.
When imposing individual sentences for all criminal offenses and imposing single sentences of imprisonment and fines as ancillary, the Court assessed the existence of mitigating and aggravating circumstances in relation to each defendant.
"This is not a court of law, but a court of justice"
"When determining the sentence, the court also took into account the sentence proposed by the SDT, but emphasizes that it did not act as a court of appeal, but as a court of justice, which is obliged to individualize the sentence in accordance with the law, the degree of guilt, the gravity of the criminal offenses committed and all established mitigating and aggravating circumstances, with strict respect for the principles of legality and proportionality," said Judge Kovačević.
She added that imposing maximum prison sentences in the manner proposed by the SDT, while taking into account other mitigating circumstances, would have the characteristics of a disproportionate sentence, which is not in line with the role of the court and the standard of fair sentencing.
"Furthermore, it would not be in line with the case law, which the SDT otherwise stated in its closing arguments. The court also appreciated the position of the SDT to impose maximum sentences on certain defendants, and house arrest on certain defendants, but it is of the opinion that in this specific case, the amount of criminal activity and the criminal offense for each defendant individually are assessed, as well as the equality of defendants before the court in terms of imposing criminal sanctions," stated Judge Kovačević.
Acquitted of charges of being a member of a criminal organization
Judge Kovačević also explained the decision that acquitted Vesna Medenica of the charge of being a member of a criminal organization.
“The Court took into account the allegations of the SDT that the accused Vesna Medenica was a member of a criminal organization that, according to the indictment, was organized by her son, the accused Miloš Medenica, and whose goal was to commit the criminal offenses of smuggling under Article 265, paragraph 2 of the Criminal Code of Montenegro and unlawful influence under Article 422, paragraph 3 in conjunction with paragraph 2 of the Criminal Code of Montenegro, for the purpose of acquiring unlawful material gain and power. According to the indictment, the criminal organization had a predefined structure, division of roles and tasks, operated continuously and indefinitely, applied the rules of internal control and discipline, was prepared for intimidation and violence, used economic and business structures, and exerted influence on the judicial authorities and other important social factors. In this context, the indictment stated that the accused Vesna Medenica, as the President and former President of the Supreme Court of Montenegro, had the task of informing herself about the movement and status of cases in the courts, to familiarize herself with the status of the files, to mediate in the adoption of court decisions and to report to the organizer in this specific case his son, the accused Miloš Medenica, other information of interest to the criminal organization, as well as to, from the position of the President of the Supreme Court, having at her disposal the information and knowledge she acquired during the performance of her duties, ensure that the organizer and members of the criminal organization are not discovered during the transfer and sale of untaxed customs goods, cigarettes, taken out of the Free Customs Zone of the Port of Bar, and to take other actions according to the instructions and orders of the organizer," the explanation reads.
"A criminal organization, as a form of collective criminal activity, requires the existence of awareness of a common criminal goal, acceptance of action within that organization and contribution to the achievement of that goal. Such elements have not been proven in relation to the accused Vesna Medenica. The Court particularly appreciated the fact that all allegations about the role of the accused Vesna Medenica are reduced to the interpretations of her son, the accused Miloš Medenica, contained in his messages, without any independent confirmation in the form of communication in which the accused participated with other members of the criminal organization, without evidence of her contact, agreement, coordination or acceptance of a common criminal plan, and without evidence of her participation in the distribution or acceptance of unlawful material gain for which, among other things, the criminal organization was created. Namely, according to the position of this Court, the accused was indisputably aware of the fact that her son, the accused Miloš Medenica, was taking bribes from third parties and that, using the authority and influence she had, she took actions to mediate in the making of court decisions, but such conduct cannot be legally qualified as action within the framework of a criminal organization, since the evidence presented "In particular, only the Sky communication of the accused Miloš Medenica with the accused Vučinić and Raičević in which he mentions the accused cannot be established with certainty that the accused was aware of the existence of the criminal organization, nor that she accepted a joint criminal plan or role in such an organization, nor that she was aware of the roles and actions of the other accused," it added.
"Furthermore, the court appreciates and states that the SDT also establishes from the conversation between witnesses Vesna and Begović and Dušanka Radović that the accused Miloš Medenica allegedly could not have acted without his mother, as well as from their conversation that the accused Vesna Medenica should have stopped him, but in the opinion of this court, they represent subjective value judgments and moral assessments, and not factual allegations about the specific actions taken by the accused. Such statements do not contain information about the time, manner and content of the alleged actions of the accused, nor do they confirm the existence of an agreement, order or joint criminal plan, which is why they cannot constitute evidence of her membership in a criminal organization or of the undertaking of criminally relevant actions, but rather represent a subjective comment and personal impression of a third party, are based on stories, assumptions and do not contain direct knowledge of the agreement, plan or role of the accused Vesna Medenica in the criminal organization. The court cannot base a decision on the guilt of the accused on such conversations, assumptions and opinions without evidence, nor can they serve as evidence in criminal proceedings," Judge Kovačević stated in her explanation.
"There is no evidence that she was in charge of cigarette smuggling"
"The court also took into account the allegations of the SDT that the accused Vesna Medenica also had the task of ensuring that the organizer and members of the criminal organization were not discovered during the transfer and sale of untaxed customs goods of cigarettes, taken out of the Free Customs Zone of the Port of Bar, which arises in particular from the SKY ECC communications that the accused Medenica Miloš made with Lalović Darko. Namely, in the quoted messages there is no explicit statement that would link the accused with the organization, management or participation in the criminal organization, nor is there any mention of cigarette smuggling as an activity that such an organization is engaged in. The use of vague expressions such as 'she knows everything about them' and 'she knows everything about God forbid', which are the key evidence of the SDT for her knowledge regarding cigarette smuggling, cannot be determined beyond reasonable doubt to what specifically that message referred to, bearing in mind that in the context of other messages within which that one was extracted, certain persons are mentioned who, according to the allegations of the accused, are also engaged in cigarette smuggling and are their competitors. "namely Grandovci, Mrkić, Pekić and the like, so without specifying the content of that alleged knowledge or possible method of action, it does not represent evidence of membership in a criminal organization, but solely the sender's subjective perception of the position and influence of a certain person," the explanation reads.
"The evidence provided by the SDT indicates that the accused, her son Miloš, is referring to her "influence or protection, but the reference to other persons on her authority or alleged knowledge, without confirmation in the form of specific actions and without objective evidence of her participation or undertaking specific actions, cannot constitute a basis for a conclusion about her membership in a criminal organization, nor about her knowledge or participation in cigarette smuggling in the manner presented in the SDT indictment, because from the aforementioned evidence presented during the proceedings, it cannot be established with an undoubted conclusion that the accused accepted any role in the criminal organization or that she had a specific task in that criminal organization, that she had information and knowledge that she obtained during the performance of her function and that she influenced the members of the criminal organization not to be discovered during the transfer and sale of untaxed customs goods - cigarettes, taken out of the Free Customs Zone of the Port of Bar," said Judge Kovačević.
Interest in the subjects “Fab Live”, “Gugi Commerce”, Cijevna Commerce” and “Omorika”
"The court determines that the accused Vesna Medenica committed the criminal offense of unlawful influence as stated in the operative part of the decision from the confessions of the accused Marko and Bojan Popović, the accused Petrović Vasilije and Stanković Jovan, which are in accordance with the content of the court files, the testimonies of the witnesses heard, the communications on the "SKY ECC" application between the accused Raičević, Vučinić and Miloš Medenica, the telephone conversations recorded using secret surveillance measures and the messages from the confiscated phone of the accused Medenica Vesna, which messages are in accordance with all the evidence presented above and the defenses of the aforementioned accused. The court considered as lawful evidence the exclusion of the content of the messages from the phone of the accused Vesna Medenica, bearing in mind that it was excluded in accordance with the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code, as well as the finding of the telecommunications expert, which establishes that no one except the accused Vesna Medenica and the password that she alone possessed could have had access to her phone in the sense of reading the content from it. As well as the expert's statement that all the data that was excluded was from her phone, which the court will provide a more detailed explanation of in the verdict itself," said judge Kovačević.
“Evaluating the presented evidence individually and in their mutual connection, the court finds that in the cases of Fab Live, Gugi Commerce, Cijevna Commerce, Omorika and Država, the existence of an unlawful agreement between certain defendants and third parties, the aim of which was to make favorable court decisions, has been proven. Whereby, the defendants Miloš Medenica, Nikola Raičević and Marko Vučinić, by creating the conditions for the commission of the criminal offense, communicated with the parties, while the defendant Vesna Medenica, using her official position and presumed influence, undertook actions of mediation and influence on other judges to perform an official action that should not have been performed and in doing so accepted the promise of a bribe for her other son, the defendant Medenica Miloš. Such a conclusion arises from the mutually agreed defenses of the defendants, namely the confessions of Marko and Bojan Popović regarding the key facts about the offer and agreement to complete the "proceedings before the Supreme Court". Then from the content of the Supreme Court court files such as the course of the proceedings, submission of the files, time of deliberation and decision-making, from the messages exchanged via the SKY ECC application between the defendants Raičević, "Vučinić and Miloš Medenica, from secret surveillance measures that record conversations about bribes and objects, and from the testimony of witnesses who concluded preliminary contracts for apartments without actually paying the price, which confirms that the provision of material benefits did not relate to the actual purchase and sale, but to the fulfillment of a corrupt agreement," the explanation adds.
"In relation to the Cijevna Commerce case, the evidence has established that the case files were taken over and delivered through Raičević and Vučinić to the accused Miloš Medenica, through whom the accused Vesna Medenica came into possession of the documentation related to the Cijevna Commerce case, and that there was continuous communication between the accused Vesna Medenica and her son, the accused Miloš Medenica, and then between him and the accused Raičević and Vučinić about the status of the case, the judges to whom the case was assigned, their absence and changes in the rapporteur, as well as that procedural instructions and suggestions were given with the aim of achieving a favorable outcome, including referring to the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights, which was implemented in the revision of the party's attorney. All of the above points to the conclusion that the accused Vesna Medenica was aware that a bribe was being given to the accused Miloš Medenica for her mediation and that by accepting the promise of a bribe received by her son, the accused Miloš Medenica, she exercised unlawful influence," stated Judge Kovačević.
She did not accept a bribe for herself.
“When it comes to the specific issue of whether the accused Vesna Medenica received a bribe for herself, the court finds that such a fact was not proven beyond reasonable doubt in the proceedings. Namely, although the court establishes from part of the evidence that a bribe was given and that the accused Miloš Medenica, Raičević and Vučinić negotiated about the amount and manner of giving the bribe, such as money, apartments, an advance payment, etc., and although some evidence indicates that the accused Petrović used the plural in his allegations (that the Medenice sent Raičević to him, that he sent the money to the Medenice and his statement that he understood that he sent it to Vesna because Miloš, as Miloš, was not interested in him), in the court’s opinion, it is not sufficient to reliably and beyond doubt establish that the accused Vesna Medenica personally received part of the bribe or that she accepted the promise of a bribe for herself and that she received the bribe. The court particularly appreciated the testimony of the aforementioned accused Petrović in the part in which he describes the actions related to giving the money, and the way in which he links the accused Vesna Medenica to these actions. Analyzing the content of the testimony, the court finds "The accused nowhere states that the accused Vesna Medenica personally asked him for money, nor that he directly handed it to her, but all allegations about the money relate to the communication and actions of the accused Miloš Medenica and third parties, namely the accused Nikola Raičević, with whom he exclusively communicated," the explanation reads.
"The court finds that there is no part of the testimony in which the accused Petrović made the claim that it was the accused Vesna Medenica who requested money, accepted the offer of a bribe or received money, nor that the accused Petrović was in direct contact with her regarding the giving of money. Bearing in mind the above, the court concludes that the allegations of the accused Petrović do not contain direct, concrete and reliable facts from which it could be established, according to the standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt, that the accused Vesna Medenica requested or received money for herself, but rather that her possible role is based solely on indirect allegations and personal conclusions of this accused, which in themselves cannot constitute a basis for establishing the fact that the accused Vesna Medenica received a bribe for herself. Crucially, there is no direct evidence in the case files of the handover of money or benefits to the accused, there is no communication in which the payment to her is agreed upon or confirmed, nor any material trace such as financial flows of money and transfers, which the court would reliably link to the receipt of benefits by the accused," it adds.
In support of the court's previous conclusion, says Judge Kovačević, are the statements of Bojan and Marko Popović that they exclusively communicated and negotiated with Miloš Medenica, which "further confirms the conclusion that the accused had no contact with the persons with whom the accused Miloš Medenica negotiated on cases pending before the competent courts."
"The court particularly appreciated the content of the messages exchanged via the SKY ECC application, which talk about taking 150.000 euros from the accused Petrović, as well as the giving of apartments by the accused Popović, and about the distribution of money and apartments (which money and apartments were actually handed over by the accused Perović and Popović, which the court concludes from their confessions). From the analysis of the aforementioned communications, the court determines that the amounts, the method of obtaining and the distribution of money were precisely agreed upon in those messages, but at the same time it is noted that the accused Miloš Medenica, Nikola Raičević and Marko Vučinić are clearly and unambiguously mentioned as the recipients. Namely, in the messages relating to the money received from the accused Petrović and sent by the accused Raičević Nikola to the accused Vučinić Marko, it is explicitly stated that 100 goes to the godfather, I get 45", "you get 5-10", whereby "godfather" in the context of these communications refers to the accused Miloš Medenica, while the remaining amounts refer to the accused Raičević and Vučinić. There is no single statement in the aforementioned messages that would indicated that part of the money was intended for the accused Vesna Medenica, nor that she was intended as the recipient of the money, which is in accordance with the above-mentioned and established facts. Ultimately, the court finds that from such an interpretation of the content of the messages, it cannot be concluded that the accused Vesna Medenica received the money or the apartments," the reasoning of the verdict states.
Proved to have exerted unlawful influence
“That the accused Vesna Medenica also committed the criminal offense of unlawful influence in the case of the Supreme Court of Montenegro Rev Ip No. 38/19, filed by prosecutors Lađić Radmila et al. against the company "Carine" DOO Podgorica and Čedomir Popović, it has been established from the file of the aforementioned case that the prosecutors filed a revision. The decision on the revision was made on April 2, 2019, when, in the minutes of deliberation and voting, a decision was made by a majority vote to reject the prosecutors' revision as unfounded, with judges Radojka Nikolić, Branimir Femić and Vesna Jočić voting to reject the revision, and judges Natalija Filipović and Rada Kovačević voting to adopt it. It has further been established from the file that the original of the judgment of the Supreme Court Rev Ip No. 38/19, which states in the introduction that it was adopted at the session of the panel on April 2, 2019, a note on deliberation and voting was noted, that the decision was made unanimously, and that the decision with the files was dispatched from the Supreme Court on April 25, 2019. However, from the message of April 15, 2019, when the accused Medenica exchanged the message with the witness Radojka Nikolić: “Rev.lp. 38/19 "see the previous decisions are ok", and the witness Nikolić replied: “I'll see", "It has already been presented to the panel, I think it is ok but others do not think so, I will present it again on Wednesday". And to the question of the accused Medenica: "Who should I pressure", the witness Nikolić replies: "See with Braco", "Ok".
"When all of the above is brought into relation, and especially when we take into account the indisputable fact that the accused Medenica is in a godfather relationship with Čedomir Popović, the owner of the company "Carine", then it is undoubtedly established that the accused, as the President of the Supreme Court, in the case of that court in which the parties to the dispute were the plaintiffs Radmila Ladić et al., and the defendant "Carine", was obviously interested in the decision being unanimously made in favor of her godfather. Therefore, after the judge-rapporteur, witness Radojka Nikolić, 15. April 2019 year, informed by telephone that at the deliberation and voting, apparently from 2. On April 2, 2019, all members of the panel did not vote to reject the revision because she sent a message to the accused Medenica after the minutes were drawn up and signed by the judges of the Supreme Court, as determined from the drawn up and signed minutes of deliberation and voting from the aforementioned date, 2. April 2019 year, namely the message dated 15. April 2019 year: "It has already been brought up at the council, I think it is ok but others don't think so, I will bring it up again on Wednesday." In the meantime, the accused mediated that the members of the council who, according to the minutes of deliberation and voting of 2 April 2019 year, voted to adopt the revision, change their minds. It is obvious from the cited evidence that the previous decision in the case was not final on 15. April 2019, when witness Nikolić informed the accused Medenica that the case had been presented to the panel but that a decision had not been made and that she would present it again "on Wednesday, or rather, on the 17th." April 2019 year, which was dispatched on the 25th. April 2019 Years. While the inspection of the files also determined that the original decision, where a note on deliberation and voting was made, stated that it was adopted unanimously on 2. April 2019 2011, when it was clearly the first session of the council, and when the decision was clearly not unanimous, given that it contradicts the facts from the minutes of deliberation and voting from the same date, which stated that the decision was made by a majority vote. When one considers the indisputable fact that in proceedings under a legal remedy, when a decision is made unanimously, no minutes of deliberation and voting are drawn up, but a note on deliberation and voting is placed on the original of the decision, and given the fact that the files also contain minutes of deliberation and voting from 2. April 2019 2009, that the decision was made by a majority vote and the record of deliberation and voting from the same day states that it was made unanimously, then an undoubted conclusion can be drawn that a decision was obviously made on that day, but that it was not unanimous, and that such a unanimous decision was made only after the mediation of the accused Medenica, and not before the 17th. April 2019 year, when considering the message from witness Nikolić to the accused that she would present the case to the panel again on Wednesday. It is concluded that the accused Vesna Medenica committed the criminal offense charged against her under Section II of the indictment, unlawful influence. "Article 422, paragraph 2 of the Criminal Code of Montenegro," the judge stated in her explanation.
Bonus video:
