Evidence against loan sharks could be collected and the authorities could more easily prove the crime if multiple victims filed criminal charges against the same person, in which case it would ultimately result in the confiscation of illegally acquired property, which is now rarely the case in practice.
With these words, a Podgorica lawyer Željko Đukanović describes the "situation on the ground" when it comes to proceedings brought for usury.
He also emphasizes that it is important to clearly distinguish between real victims, those who were in need, under pressure or duress, and those who knowingly took extreme risks expecting quick benefits.
"The law allows for the temporary seizure of property of a person whose property is suspected of having originated from the commission of the criminal offense of usury under Article 252 of the Criminal Code of Montenegro, and the conditions and provisions for the temporary seizure of property are more closely defined by the Law on the Confiscation of Property Gains Acquired through Criminal Activity, and that property may be temporarily seized until the verdict becomes final. In the event of a verdict finding the perpetrator of the criminal offense of usury guilty, and the origin of the property suspected of having originated from the commission of that criminal offense, that property will be permanently seized by the state," explained Đukanović.
The lawyer emphasizes that in practice this is extremely rare: "Because the crime of usury in itself is often difficult to prove."
"In addition to joining the criminal prosecution, the injured party may also file a property claim in the form of compensation during criminal proceedings, but most often this property claim of the injured party, if he proves the damage, is realized in civil proceedings, which are often conducted in parallel with the criminal proceedings," he explained, answering the question - how does a victim file a property claim in criminal proceedings, and whether it is better to file a separate civil case.
He also pointed out that in these cases, the lawyer's first step must be to advise the client to collect as much concrete evidence and documentation as possible, with which the report will have a legal basis and further support during the possible conduct of criminal proceedings, so that the epilogue is satisfactory for the injured party.
"The criminal act of usury is difficult to prove, because the 'evidence' itself must be unambiguously clear both to the prosecutor and before the court - and this is, first of all, proving the disproportion (highly agreed interest) between the loan and the obligation to repay, using the injured party's necessity, consciously exploiting such a condition, difficult life situation or situation - all with the aim of obtaining unlawful material gain. But, if the injured party has no written traces, witnesses, or a detailed financial expert examination by the prosecutor, the case 'fails' in 99 percent of cases," he states.
He adds that, in practice, this procedure, without a very strong and concrete evidentiary potential on the part of the prosecutor and the injured party, is doomed to failure.
“In the case of, for example, filing a criminal complaint by multiple persons against one person for the criminal offense of usury, this significantly helps, in terms of a certain 'pattern of behavior', then destroying the argument of a 'voluntary relationship' and making it easier to prove in court for the injured parties. Also, this most specifically affects the prosecution, in terms of additional 'motivation' for conducting criminal proceedings.”
Đukanović also emphasizes that in order to systematically eradicate usury, it is necessary to conduct detailed and professional financial investigations, as well as a certain specialization of prosecutors for these criminal offenses.
"As well as a very important (not declarative as is often the case, but concrete) action by the competent authorities - protection of both victims and potential witnesses, all with the aim of reducing the fear of reporting among injured parties."
"However, I must emphasize one very important fact that is rarely, if ever, discussed, and that I have often encountered in practice, and that is that, when talking about usury, it is important to move away from the simplified picture in which one party is always the victim and the other is always exclusively the criminal. Practice shows that reality is often not so linear. In a significant number of cases that I have encountered, money is not borrowed out of extreme necessity - medical treatment, existential threat or basic needs - but for luxury, travel, risky investments, etc. It is precisely for such purposes that banks rightly do not approve loans without serious guarantees and multiple protective mechanisms. When these mechanisms are deliberately bypassed, and money is taken 'in hand', without papers and control, one enters the zone of consciously assumed financial risk," he added.
The lawyer points out that in such situations, theoretically, there could be mutual criminal liability - one for fraud and the other for usury, but he emphasizes that the problem here too is proof.
“The problem arises when, after the failure of such plans, the same relationship is retroactively attempted by the ‘injured party’ to be presented as coercion, and the state is perceived as a rescue mechanism from a bad business decision. In practice, it is often a matter of financial, business, and even life opportunism, which is subsequently hidden under the cloak of ‘victim’ status with the expectation that the police, prosecutor’s office, and courts will resolve what was consciously started. Theoretically, in such situations, there could be mutual criminal liability. A person who takes money, knowingly deceiving the other party that he will be able to repay the debt, although from the beginning he expects that he will not do so but will later call on the protection of the state, could be held liable for the criminal offense of fraud. On the other hand, a person who gives money under obviously disproportionate and illegal conditions is liable for the criminal offense of usury. However, the key problem is proof. While in the case of usury it is possible to objectively prove disproportionality, interest, and conditions, in the case of fraud it is extremely difficult to prove internal intent - how and on what basis to determine that someone is already in "at the time of the loan, he knew that he would not repay the debt, but that he would invoke the protection of the authorities (it is necessary to prove intent, intention, deception, etc.). It is precisely this evidentiary barrier that leads to the fact that in practice one party is almost exclusively prosecuted. Therefore, it is important to clearly distinguish between real victims - those who were in need, under pressure or coercion - from those who consciously took extreme risks in the expectation of quick profit," he said.
Đukanović says that the Criminal Code must not become a substitute for bank credit:
"Nor a mechanism for remediating failed financial adventures, because that would undermine trust in the system and render meaningless the protection of those who truly need it."
Second time in the jaws of the moneylenders
In addition to the difficulty of proving it, the problem with prosecuting loan sharks is the small number of reports - and while the majority remain silent out of fear or distrust of institutions, individuals do not go to the police or prosecutor's office out of shame.
This is also explained by the interviewee of "Vijesti", one of a number who has many years of experience with loan sharks, stating that not even his closest family knows how much he owes at interest and to whom, and that this is the main reason why he does not report it.
He admits that he first borrowed money from a moneylender more than two decades ago, when they paid off their debt by selling their family apartment.
He says he did the same during the height of the coronavirus pandemic, when his private business came to a halt.
"My business completely stopped during the corona era, and the obligations kept coming. I got into debt again with moneylenders. I borrowed 15.000 euros from one, and then when the installments started coming in, and the squeeze every month, I borrowed another 20.000 euros from another. This first one accused my brother of being a member of the Kavač clan," he says.
He claims that he then started gambling, hoping to "get out" that way.
"I first took two from the second moneylender, then three, then five. That's how we came to 20.000 euros. Now I have M. 12.000 euros, and at Š"... 20.000 euros. I also have some other small things. I've been paying interest on the first one since 2021, and on the second one since 2023. I took out a loan from the second one to pay interest on the first one. I didn't dare tell anyone that after 20 years I had the same problem," he explains.
He adds that he is trying to break free, working several jobs, but that he is having a hard time breaking out of the vicious circle.
"I don't want the family to suffer again because of this, but M. is rude - he meets someone from my company and then tells them that I owe him interest, since he knows that my salary is from the 1st to the 5th of the month, he immediately starts sending me a hundred messages a day, writing to me that he also owes someone, that he needs them urgently, he tries to create pressure. I paid them both back twice as much as I took," he said.
He cites examples of people from his environment who had problems with the same loan sharks, and who reported them...
"I can't report them, not because of myself, but because of my family, not even when they try to destroy my family with gossip and calls. I have to endure it until I get a loan, because no problem suits me because of my family, that's why I don't report them, otherwise I would solve the problem," he said.
He points out that he also has no proof that they gave him money, nor that he pays them back every month.
"I'm not going to the police, I don't have any contract, record, receipt, anything. They gave me money on my word. M. told me a hundred times to get by, to sell the car, he pressured me. I gave him 4.000 euros once, but that doesn't affect the debt, except that I managed to reduce the principal from 15.000 to 12.000 euros.
"The other one agrees to let me give him whatever I have - 50, 100, 200 euros every five days. With him, my installment is 500 euros, and with the one who is pressuring me, it's 450 euros a month," says the middle-aged man.
He reiterates that he hopes that soon, so that his family can function normally, he will manage to repay his debt to the two Podgorica loan sharks.
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.
Đukanović: I do not belong to any organized criminal group, I do not engage in loan sharking
Niko A. Đukanović announced that he does not belong to any organized crime group and that he is not involved in loan sharking.
He made this statement in response to the article "Murder of Bosses Didn't Stop Usury: Usury in Montenegro (15)" which was published yesterday in the Independent Daily (ND) Vijesti and on the Vijesti portal.
"Regarding the text published in your newsletter on 11. 2. 2026 under the title "The murders of bosses did not stop the interest", a member of a criminal group and a person engaged in usury N. Đukanović appears. In order not to mislead the public, I declare that I, Niko A. Đukanović, apart from my name, have no connection with the aforementioned person, nor do I belong to any organized criminal group, let alone engage in usury. Therefore, I ask you to publish a denial so that we do not mislead the public and to wash the untruth from my name and my family. Thank you in advance, Niko A. Đukanović," Đukanović stated in the statement.
Šaranović: I have nothing to do with loan sharking, I don't deal with crime, I'm ready to confirm the claims with a polygraph test
Milan Šaranović announced that he has nothing to do with loan sharking and that he is not involved in criminal activities.
In response to the article "Murder of Bosses Did Not Stop Usury: Usury in Montenegro (15)", which was published yesterday in the Independent Daily (ND) Vijesti and on the Vijesti portal, he said that he was ready to confirm his claims with a polygraph test.
"Regarding the information that appeared in your article, I would like to hereby deny and responsibly claim that I have nothing to do with loan sharking or any criminal activities. I am ready to confirm my claims with a polygraph," Šaranović said in a statement.
Kovač: I categorically deny that I was involved in loan sharking, as well as the allegations that I performed such work while in prison
"I categorically deny claims that I have ever engaged in loan sharking, as well as allegations that I performed such activities while in prison or through other persons," Stefan Kovač said.
He made this statement in response to the article "Murder of Bosses Didn't Stop Usury: Usury in Montenegro (15)" which was published yesterday in the Independent Daily (ND) Vijesti and on the Vijesti portal.
"Regarding the allegations published in the article of the 'Vijesti' portal under the title 'Murder of bosses did not stop interest: Usury in Montenegro', I demand the publication of a denial for presenting untrue and unverified information that grossly damages my reputation and honor.
I categorically deny the claims that I have ever engaged in loan sharking, as well as the allegations that I have carried out such activities while in prison or through other persons. I emphasize that there is no evidence for such claims, nor have I ever been involved in any illegal activities of this kind.
I also completely reject the allegations linking me to any organized criminal group. It is unclear to me on the basis of what information and sources such untruths were made public, especially considering the seriousness of the accusations which could have far-reaching and dangerous consequences for my safety, family and social reputation.
By publishing unverified and unfounded claims, without providing evidence or an opportunity to express my position before publishing the text, the basic principles of professional and ethical journalism were violated, including the obligation to accurately, objectively and responsibly inform the public, as prescribed by the Journalist Code.
"Given that the disputed text was published and shared on the official Facebook page of this media outlet, in addition to the portal Vijesti, where it has a large number of followers, which has caused additional damage to my reputation, I demand that this denial be published on the official Facebook page of 'Vijesti', in addition to the portal, bearing in mind that the untrue allegations were additionally placed on the public through that social network," Kovač stated in his reaction.
Jovanović: All allegations linking me to working in the criminal milieu and usury are absolute lies
"All allegations linking me to working in the criminal milieu and usury are absolute lies, devoid of any factual basis or official data," Taso Jovanović said.
"Thereby, they are causing incalculable damage to my family's reputation, which I am obliged to protect. This statement represents an official denial of all malicious constructions," Jovanović said in response to the article "The murders of bosses did not stop interest: Usury in Montenegro (15)" which was published yesterday in the Independent daily (ND) Vijesti and on the Vijesti portal.
In tomorrow's "News", read how parts of the Kavača group engage in loan sharking, where they gather and make plans, as well as the confession of another of their victims.
Bonus video:
