Although the liquidations Igor Dedović i Jovan Vukotić hit the top of the Skaljari criminal organization hard, unofficial intelligence indicates that the clan is far from extinct - loan sharking remains one of their most stable sources of income...
According to the same information, operational data from security services shows that members or close associates of this group are involved in usury throughout the country, that they are indirectly or directly connected to some of the members of the Varvari fan group, but also that they were known to be in conflict with each other over the division of territory, primarily related to the distribution of cocaine.
Supporting this information, they state that a high-ranking "scoundrel" is engaged in this business in Cetinje. T. Jovanovic, who has allegedly been working closely with one of his associates on this matter recently M. Vuksanović...
Among the Cetinje Skaljarci and their close associates, there are also active M. Mašanović, N. Djukanovic, M. Vušurović, P. Vujovic, M. Grgurović, D. Rudovic, R. Stanojevic, R. Vujović, J. Kaludjerovic, S. Celebić, L. Vujovic, L. Špadijer, B. Pejović, brothers Đurović...
One of the sources of "Vijesti" claims that S. Kovac from Cetinje recently returned from prison in Austria, which, according to him, will increase his participation in the loan sharking business "which he carried out while in prison through certain younger people"...
Intelligence sources indicate that the Skalja OKG uses usury not only as a source of profit, but also as a mechanism of control - over the territory, debtors and its own operatives.
Numerous individuals from Podgorica are also active in these activities, and one of the most significant organizers of this illegal business is mentioned as a multiple returnee in committing criminal offenses. M. RadulovićIt is explained that operational data shows that his priority in loan sharking often leads to more serious crimes - planting explosive devices, extortion, collecting loan shark debts, physical attacks for the purpose of intimidation, but also smuggling and distribution of narcotics:
"He often carries out this work with his associates, partly under the guise of purchasing expensive vehicles, repairing vehicles, etc.," said one of the sources to "Vijesti".
Intelligence obtained by the newspaper also suggests that there were disagreements between him and his brothers. V. i F. Jovović, and about the division of territory related to the distribution of cocaine in the area of D”anilovgrad and Podgorica.
The interlocutor claims that the criminal group gathered around these brothers has long posed a significant security challenge.
According to the same data, part of that group is closely connected to part of the "Varvari" fan group, meaning that one of the leaders M. Mihailovic He closely cooperates with V. Jovović and his associates in the field of moneylending. As one of the most important moneylenders in the same context, he is also mentioned M. Saranovic...
Vukadinović Group
A special place in operational data related to usury is occupied by a group of people from Podgorica. J. Vukadinović, which the newspaper's sources call one of the strongest levers for confrontation with the opposing Kavač clan.
And that group, say the interlocutors, has been posing a major security challenge in Montenegro for a long time, and that Podgorica resident, due to his strong logistics, is treated by several associates from Montenegro and abroad as one of the current leaders of the Škaljari organized crime group.
This, they claim, is also indicated by his widespread network of associates in the country and abroad, and he is also characterized by unscrupulousness in his dealings with even his closest associates.
They also state that Vukadinović uses his closest associates, as well as his brother, to commit serious crimes. P. Vukadinović...
"Most members of J. Vukadinović's group are also involved in usury for his and their own personal interests."
Loan sharking is a serious crime and is deeply rooted in organized crime.
Victims are usually people in difficult financial situations and cannot obtain loans from banks.
According to sources at "Vijesti", these are enormously high interest rates - often 10 to 20 percent per month, or even more.
In the event of default, loan sharks often use threats, physical force, or confiscation of real estate (houses, apartments, vehicles, etc.), which serve as unofficial collateral. Fictitious purchase and sale contracts are often concluded with notaries so that loan sharks can take over the victim's property if the debt is not repaid.
In previous years, loan sharking in Montenegro rarely existed as an isolated business and was almost always associated with organized crime groups, primarily due to the coercive mechanisms available to these groups.
However, in recent years, more and more people, mostly young people who are not members of organized criminal groups, have entered the loan sharking business, so it can be said that in recent years, this number has been measured in thousands of organizers and other participants in loan sharking.
The prosecution believed the loan shark.
Two fictitious contracts, between the parents of a Podgorica resident and a loan shark, by which property worth 460.000 euros was "sold" for 50.000 euros, were challenged before the Podgorica Basic Court in the case of one of the interviewees of "Vijesti" - a victim of loan sharks. N. Lopičić, from whom he borrowed 10.000 euros in 2012, to urgently take his pregnant wife for treatment outside of Montenegro.
The interviewee of "Vijesti" reported the loan shark a decade ago - in March 2016, and again six years later. At that time, he filed criminal charges for loan sharking and harassment against fellow citizen Lopičić.
Although, as he claims, the police did everything they could to protect him from the person to whom he returned many times more money than he borrowed for his pregnant wife's treatment, and are prosecuting the loan shark, the prosecutor Snezana Spanjevic Volkov she dismissed his criminal complaint.
The decision states that there are no receipts for the loan or a contract, but also that the injured party did not prove that he had previously tried to take out a loan, and the Podgorica resident claims that she asked him "why he didn't manage it in another way", that is, why, if it was urgent, he didn't ask his friend to return the money he had previously lent him.
The Higher State Prosecutor's Office also sided with the prosecutor, stating that her conclusion was correct "that the injured party did not present any evidence that he had tried to take out a loan before taking out a loan from the suspect," and that there were no confirmations or loan agreements...
The prosecution also assessed that the prosecutor's conclusion was correct, because the injured party, before taking on debt with Lopičić, did not attempt to forcibly collect the claims he had against MV in the amount of 32.000 euros.
"Through such behavior, he contributed to creating his own difficult financial situation," the ruling states.
The prosecution explains that for the criminal offense of usury, it is not enough to borrow money at disproportionate interest, but to do so by abusing his personal qualities - frivolity or insufficient ability to reason, or certain objective circumstances on the part of the injured party, such as a difficult financial situation, difficult circumstances or necessity...
The injured party's complaint was dismissed while the proceedings were ongoing in the Basic Court in Podgorica, initiated because the loan shark wanted to register the victim's and his parents' property, worth almost half a million euros, in his own name.
Shortly after the prosecutor dismissed the criminal charges, the court sided with the victim and declared the contract null and void.
"Vijesti" expects answers from the Podgorica Public Prosecutor's Office, where prosecutor Španjević Volkov worked at the time, to questions on the basis of which facts she made the decision, especially considering that the Basic Court in Podgorica ruled in favor of Kažić and declared the contracts to be usurious, whether they reviewed her decision on an extraordinary basis, and also what message is being sent to the victims of usurers if, as the injured party claims, the prosecutor asks them "why they didn't find another way than to go to the usurer"?
President of the Notary Chamber Darko Ćurić, before whom the parents of the interviewee of "Vijesti2" concluded the contract in 2014, said that since he had not noticed any lack of will, indications or suspicions that it could be an illegal contract, he did not believe there was a need to report anything to the police or the competent prosecutor's office.
The beginning of the problem
A man from Podgorica borrowed 10.000 euros from Lopičić in 2012 with an interest rate of eight percent per month, because he urgently needed the money to take his pregnant wife out of Montenegro for treatment.
He states that for several months he paid 800 euros in interest, and then he borrowed another 5.000 euros, in order to pay him back the interest and continue to pay 1.200 euros per month. "When I was unable to pay for a few months due to our problems and gave him part of the interest, then he said that the debt was no longer 15.000 euros, but 18.000, and that's how it came to 52.000 euros, and then he told me that I had to keep paying him back the interest, that I couldn't be late. I paid for several months, and then he said that I owed 84.000 euros. I paid 6.000 euros per month, and he asked us to mortgage the land, which the court estimated at 280.000 euros. When my parents did that, he called a friend, Mr. Pejović"... also a moneylender, who said that the land was not worth that much, so he also asked for my parents' house in Donja Gorica as collateral, which the court expert estimated at 180.000 euros, with the obligation to return it to us when I pay the interest of 84.000 euros," says the Podgorica native.
He states that he managed to repay 46.000 euros in interest, that he was given a car by a friend to whom he had previously lent money, which Lopičić estimated at 20.000 euros, but that he refused to return the property.
"It's a pure loan of money with interest... From 2012 to 2014, I returned 46.000 euros, because I didn't repay it regularly, so he calculated the interest that I was paying as I could and knew how. When I could no longer pay the interest, nor the principal debt, I asked him to stop the interest and find a solution. I complained to my father that I could no longer pay the interest and he told Lopičić that he had a plot of land in the Lješanska nahija, which he went to look at the next day. The father reversed the inheritance procedure, he had someone in the court speed it up, so the aunts immediately renounced in favor of the father. Then we took out the possession certificate and called Pejović, who said that the value of the plot of land did not cover the entire debt, but that we should draw up a purchase and sale contract so that Lopičić could sleep peacefully, at least until I returned the 32.000 euros that were with my friend," says the Podgoričanin.
He adds that, organized by Pejović and Lopičić, they went to a notary and drew up a contract.
"Then I told my friend that I was in serious trouble and that he should return my money. He returned 7.000 euros in three months, and since he couldn't return the rest right away, he suggested that he sit down with Lopičić and return the 25.000 euros he owed me. That's what happened. In October or November 2014, we sat down and he gave him until March 2015. He paid 4.500 euros in my name, which Lopičić and I picked up at the post office and Lopičić took it, and the next day he paid another 500 euros in his name. At the end of the summer, my friend called him and offered him a 'Mercedes SL' instead of money, to pay off the remaining 20.000 euros, which he accepted and transferred the vehicle to his nephew. When that debt was returned, according to his calculations, there were still 52.000 euros left, and I asked him to return the house to us, and to "The land in the Lješanska nahija remained, which he didn't even want to hear about. He said that he had been waiting for me for a long time and that he owed me 90.000 euros at the time, so I decided to consult with lawyers. First, we sent him a warning, and when he received it, he returned the keys to the house and said that he was not interested, only the money and that he would try to delay it so that I would not return the 90.000 euros immediately. I suggested that the plot be sold, I brought buyers, but he told them that he was the seller, so they gave up," the interlocutor of "Vijesti" stated, and he also said the same in the courtroom of the Basic Court, where he annulled the contract.
The prosecution does not see the usurious contract
The interlocutor of "Vijesti" points out that he filed a second criminal report and lawsuit when he saw that the problem had not been resolved for years, and that Lopičić simply did not allow him to pay off his debts in order to get his hands on their property.
He also states that the man from Podgorica came to their house to threaten them, that one of his children became ill due to constant stress, and that after the professional response of the police, he expected the Prosecutor's Office to side with the victim.
"First there was a prosecutor, then she changed and the case was taken over by prosecutor Španjević Volkov. Despite everything, including the fact that the fictitious contracts clearly show that they are extortionate, she decided to dismiss the complaint as unfounded. Her decision was confirmed by the Higher State Prosecutor's Office, but my lawyers managed to prove the truth in the dispute before the Basic Court. Judge Dragan Šćepanović concluded that the contract was extortionate," explains the interlocutor of "Vijesti".
The verdict he submitted to "Vijesti" explained why the contracts signed in 2014 with notary Ćorić were declared null and void.
"The contract for the sale of immovable property UZZ No. 210/14 of 27.06.2104. has elements of a usurious contract, pursuant to the provisions of Art. 135 of the ZOO, because the opponent of the security took advantage of the state of emergency or the difficult financial situation of another to arrange for himself a benefit that is clearly disproportionate to what was given to him. This is especially true because he had in mind the fact that it relates to the value of the stated purchase price, which is 50.000 euros, and that the real estate was estimated by an agricultural expert at 274.505 euros, which indicates that it is disproportionately higher than the agreed purchase price," the Basic Court's decision states.
Previously, the contract for the house was also canceled.
An appeal against this decision was filed with the Supreme Court.
Research by "Vijesti" shows that debt bondage does not only happen to the "irresponsible". Anyone can fall into it - both the calm and the hardworking, both the hardworking and the responsible, both the strong and the weak. The loan sharks are just waiting for a moment of weakness.
This is confirmed by the survey results - some citizens took on debt out of necessity, when institutional assistance was unavailable or too slow, while a significant number went into debt to maintain a lifestyle beyond their realistic means or to cover gambling losses, decisions that today, in a conversation with a journalist, they recognize as serious personal mistakes.
Whoever lends money or other consumable items and thereby contracts a disproportionate material benefit shall be punished by imprisonment for up to three years and a fine, reads the description of the criminal offense of "usury" in the Criminal Code (CC) of Montenegro.
If the usurer "takes advantage of the poor financial situation, difficult circumstances, necessity, frivolity or insufficient ability to reason of the injured party", he will be punished with imprisonment from three months to three years and a fine.
The Criminal Code stipulates that a loan shark can be punished with imprisonment from six months to five years and a fine if serious consequences have occurred for the injured party or the perpetrator has obtained material gain in an amount exceeding three thousand euros.
The contract for the sale of immovable property UZZ No. 210/14 of 27.06.2104. has elements of a usurious contract, pursuant to the provisions of Art. 135 of the ZOO, because the opponent of the security took advantage of the state of emergency or the difficult financial situation of another to contract for himself a benefit that is clearly disproportionate to what was given to him. This is especially because he had in mind the fact that it relates to the value of the stated purchase price, which is 50.000 euros, and that the real estate was estimated by an agricultural expert at the amount of 274.505 euros, which indicates that it is disproportionately higher than the agreed purchase price," the Basic Court's decision reads.
"The prosecutor is not interested in the recordings"
After the court resolved the dispute in favor of the Podgorica resident and placed a temporary measure on his parents' plot of land, Lopičić attempted to build on the property.
His victim defended her property, even making video recordings, which, according to the Podgorica resident, the prosecutor refused to watch.
Two recordings were submitted to "Vijesti", and in them Lopičić can be seen and the voice of the interlocutor can be heard, who was recording after calling the police.
At one point, Lopičić gets into the car and stops, after which the "Vijesti" interlocutor explains to him that it is his land and that the court has issued a temporary measure, and he is asking for money.
"You'll go to Spuž because of the interest," the landowner tells him...
"The prosecutor didn't want to watch this, nor use it as evidence, she just said she wasn't interested," said the Podgorica resident.
Ćurić: There was nothing suspicious, I don't know about the verdict
Ćurić responded last night that 12 years have passed since the contract was concluded and that upon reviewing the case, he found "nothing at all that would be suspicious or indicate that it was an illegal legal transaction."
He also claims that this is a classic real estate sale contract without any suspicious or illegal elements, with the participation of the seller and his spouse as the consent giver, on the one hand, and the buyer on the other.
"Therefore, the contract was similar to hundreds and even thousands of sales contracts that were concluded at that time. What's more, that contract was preceded by a preliminary contract, concluded between the same contracting parties a month earlier, which gave the parties additional time to change their minds and abandon the conclusion of the main contract in case it did not suit them. I responsibly claim that when concluding the aforementioned contract, I had no knowledge, indications or even hints that it could be an illegal legal transaction, because if such a situation had arisen, I would certainly have refused to conclude such a contract," his response reads.
Ćurić also states that, among his fellow notaries and clients, he is known as a so-called "difficult" notary who "requests too much evidence and documentation from the parties necessary for concluding a contract."
"So, I indignantly reject the suggestions in your question about the possible existence of indications of the illegality of the concluded legal transaction, and that the contract was nevertheless concluded. As is known, a contract represents the consent of the contracting parties, and only in the case of the existence of the so-called lack of will (coercion, fraud or delusion of the party) would there be a condition to refuse to conclude such a contract. I repeat, despite the use of all due professional care, the reading of all provisions of the contract to the parties, who followed the text of it on the monitor placed in front of them in the notary's office, warnings about possible measures to ensure the fulfillment of the other party's obligation and the provision of legal instructions by notaries, which are also stated in the contract itself, I did not notice such lack of will in any of the parties. On the contrary, all parties subsequently voluntarily and unanimously signed the said contract. Given that I did not notice the existence of any lack of will, indications or suspicions that it could be an illegal contract, I did not consider there to be a need to report anything to the police or the competent prosecutor's office," the answers state.
Ćurić also wrote that he could not comment on the journalist's allegations about the verdict of the Basic Court in Podgorica, P. No. 1856/21, which was passed in favor of the injured party and the contracts were declared null and void.
"For the simple reason that I had no knowledge of it until the moment I received your questions. After I received your questions, I tried to find the aforementioned verdict on the web portal of the Basic Court in Podgorica, but it was not published there. Since I am not in the habit of commenting on facts about which I have no knowledge, and since I have no other knowledge about the aforementioned verdict other than the allegations in your questions, I must leave you with no comment on that."
He also claims that when undertaking each of his notarial actions, he fully respects the law and the obligations imposed on notaries by regulations, and that he carries them out with due care:
"So there is no possibility that it was different on this particular occasion. I also point out that a notary, according to the law, is an independent professional who acts impartially and is obliged to protect the interests of all parties equally, so that for a notary there must be no 'stronger' and 'weaker' party, as you state, but rather he is obliged to treat everyone equally and impartially."
In tomorrow's "News", read what a lawyer says about the problem of usury, as well as the shocking confession of one of the victims of this illegal business.
DON'T MISS IT
Bonus video:
