Who ruled in favor of the usurer? Usury in Montenegro (24)

Caught between racketeers, usurers, debt collectors and institutions that, he claims, remained silent to his cries, Novljanin Bojo Sekaric He got a glimmer of hope that he would be able to save his property - former judge of the Basic Court in Herceg Novi Andrija Marojević He told him that this was the first time he had seen the decision and that he had not written it, even though the judgment, which served as a basis for threatening his livelihood, was registered under his name and bore his signature.

Šekarić told "Vijesti" about this, stating that because of such words from the former judge, he filed a criminal complaint on October 29, 2025 for forging an official document and that he hopes that someone competent will finally be found who will review how the document, which is now used as the legal basis for confiscating his property, was created.

This restaurateur has been struggling with loan sharks for two and a half decades, who, he claims, took everything he had earned in three decades, except for the roof over his head, which they are now targeting...

He says that the burden of pressure, threats and legal proceedings has over time shifted to what he considers his last line of defense - his apartment, which he at one point transferred to his daughter.

In one of the proceedings, which, according to him, was intended to make it more difficult for loan sharks to get to his house, the verdict was rendered in favor of those who, he claims, are persecuting him. The documents show that it bears the signature of Judge Marojević.

Former judge, now lawyer Marojević, confirmed to "Vijesti" yesterday that he did not make that decision, stating that his signature is on the back page and that he does not know how it got there.

He also said that the disputed verdict was "a legal embarrassment."

With that verdict, which "Vijesti" has access to, the Basic Court in Herceg Novi adopted the claim of the now deceased on August 18, 2023. B. S. and determined that the gift agreement, by which Šekarić transferred the apartment to his daughter, “has no legal effect towards the plaintiff” to the extent necessary to settle the claim.

This decision practically paves the way for the debt, which Šekarić claims does not exist, to be settled by selling an apartment in Igalo, measuring 87 square meters.

That is precisely why Šekarić insists that his claim about the conversation with the judge is more than just a "personal impression".

If it were to turn out that the judge was not the author of the court document bearing his name and signature, this would, according to his interpretation, raise the question of the legality of the entire chain that followed that verdict - from the legal refutation of the gift, through enforcement proceedings, to the attempt to, as he says, take away the only thing he had left.

He also explained that at one point, through a gift contract, he gave his daughter an apartment, but that BS requested the annulment of that contract in order to collect again for the debt that he was forced to sign.

"Vijesti" published Šekarić's testimony yesterday about a twenty-five-year hell during which, as he claims, day after day, loan sharks took everything he managed to earn, constantly keeping him in fear - with threats to his family, to himself, persecution...

The Novalja native said that his problems began two and a half decades ago, when he fell into debt due to racketeering by local mafia members, and then a waiter who worked in his restaurant offered him a "life-saving" solution - to borrow 18.000 marks from the employee's father-in-law...

He states that he returned them a much larger amount, but that the death threats and sending photos of his grandson did not stop even then...

Finally, he explains, on April 3, 2014, certain citizens of Bosnia and Herzegovina arrived, whose nicknames are Plummet, Zemo, Chago i Yellow, put him in the trunk, drove him to the Basic Court in Herceg Novi and forced him to sign a prepared statement that he owed a fellow citizen 112.000 euros.

Whose verdict is it?

For years, fighting to prove that he had repaid the debt and that he was a victim of loan sharks, Šekarić, he points out, expected the truth to come out in court - that he had signed the statement under duress. However, that did not happen. In vain, he explains, he addressed all competent institutions - the prosecutor's office and the courts, from the Basic to the Supreme Court, but also the Bar Association, to which he wrote, offering them, as he stated, evidence that his legal representative had worked for the opposing side.

The hope that justice would prevail, he says, appeared when he went to the judge who, according to the verdict, annulled his contract by which he had gifted the apartment to his daughter.

"After we received the verdict, I went to the judge and asked him what made him make such a verdict, if he didn't listen to me or my daughter. He was amazed. He told me that this was the first time he had seen the decision and that he hadn't written it. He also told me that his signature was on the verdict, but that he didn't know how. He answered in the affirmative when asked if he would testify to that, after which I started pressing criminal charges," claims Šekarić.

The verdict became final because, he claims, his lawyer never submitted the appeal, which he had shown him.

Last year, he filed a criminal complaint for forgery of an official document and abuse of official position, but the Herceg Novi prosecutor's office, he claims, dismissed the charges...

He appealed the decision of the Novi prosecutor's office to the Higher State Prosecutor's Office in Podgorica, stating that former judge Marojević, as a witness, categorically claims that he did not write the verdict, and that the prosecutor did not question him about those circumstances at all, nor did he conduct any action to collect evidence in that direction.

“Witness Marojević states that his signature is certainly at the end of the original judgment, but as the submitter of this complaint was convinced by inspecting the case files of the Basic Court in Herceg Novi P.br. 321/20, the pages of the original of the said judgment were not numbered when 'written' on the computer, but were only 'listed in the files' with a pencil. This would have raised suspicions among the acting prosecutor, if he had really wanted to examine the specific case in detail, about the possibility of 'inserting' pages of the specific judgment and therefore he would have requested the necessary information from the Basic Court in Herceg Novi and conducted the necessary investigations. The statement of the 'reason' for the specific decision of the Basic State Prosecutor's Office in Herceg Novi that 'the judgment was rendered in a legally conducted procedure' is more than noticeable. Is any state prosecutor's office competent to assess the legality of any court decision of any court in Montenegro? We filed the complaint due to obvious reasonable suspicion that it was possible to write the judgment subsequently, after the judge 'signed' it, and the last page, on which, "According to witness Marojević, his signature is indisputably found, 'added' later. The state prosecutor did not deal with these possibilities of a specific, obviously illegal verdict, but rather engaged in assessing its legality, which is neither legally nor functionally his responsibility, i.e. he is absolutely incompetent for that," said Šekarić.

He emphasizes that the decision states that advisors assist the judge in his work, draft decisions and perform other professional tasks prescribed by law or regulations adopted on the basis of the law, independently or under the supervision and instructions of the judge, but that the prosecutor did not examine whether any of the advisors, and if so, which one, and under whose instructions, drafted the verdict.

"Therefore, I suspect that the verdict was falsified and made on the orders and instructions of a third party, and perhaps the prosecutor's attorney in the civil proceedings in the case of the Basic Court in Herceg Novi, a lawyer, who was not heard on those circumstances," said Šekarić.

"Finally, the 'most interesting', and the one most favorable to the perpetrators of the reported crimes, is the statement of the 'reason' for the disputed decision that the verdict was issued based on the judge's free conviction. What kind of free conviction can we talk about in a situation when the acting judge, witness Marojević, literally says that he did not write that verdict?" said Šekarić.

“The verdict is a legal embarrassment”

Former judge Marojević confirmed yesterday in an interview with a journalist that he did not write the verdict that annulled the gift contract between Šekarić and his daughter.

"I did not issue that verdict. Nor did I order anyone, at any time, to write it, or draft it. I found out about the verdict when Šekarić came to my office and showed it to me. It is undeniable that my signature is on the last page of the verdict, but not the verdict. I read it, that verdict is legally embarrassing. It is a disaster," said Marojević.

He explains that he doesn't even know what happened, or who made that decision or how.

"I resigned in June of that year. In October, I think, I was declared to have ceased to be a judge. When Šekarić came to me and showed me the decision, apart from knowing that it was not mine, I explained to him that no one could have made it on my orders, because I had no advisors, no associates, no interns. So, I had no one to order it to. They can shoot me now, but the truth is that it really is not my verdict. That is easy to determine even by simply comparing it with the decisions I have made. All my verdicts have a spelling and lexical norm, unlike this one. In it, in the part where the costs are, only a figure is stated, but not the currency. There are not even pesetas, yuans, yens, rubles, hryvnias, just some numbers. I have never allowed myself to do that. Let's not talk about the rest," said Marojević.

He answered affirmatively when asked whether he was questioned after Šekarić filed a criminal complaint.

"The prosecutor called me, but he asked me if it was my signature. I said yes, because it was. He also asked me if it was my verdict, I said no, that I didn't write it and that I didn't order anyone to write this. And the verdict is completely, first of all linguistically abnormal, and then everything else. I repeat, it's legally embarrassing," said Marojević.

He added that he did not make a decision in that case because the case was not completed within the deadline set by the then President of the Supreme Court, Vesna Medenica, for similar disputes.

"I didn't even know what was happening with the case until Šekarić, whom I didn't know, came to me and showed me the decision," he said...

Everyone can become a victim.

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.

Judgment without a hearing

The disputed verdict, which Vijesti has access to, accepted the claim of the now deceased Novljanin BS and determined that the gift contract certified by a notary has no legal effect towards the plaintiff, to the extent of the need to settle the monetary claim...

Boje Šekarić's daughter was ordered to allow the plaintiff to collect his claim against her father from the sale of real estate, residential space...

"The defendant is obliged to reimburse the plaintiff for the costs of the civil proceedings in the amount of 1.210,00 within 15 days from the date the judgment becomes final, under threat of forced execution," the judgment states, without specifying what the 1.210...

In the request to annul the gift contract, BS stated that Šekarić was obliged to pay him 45.000 euros, with statutory default interest from September 1, 2014 until payment, under threat of forced execution.

The late Novljanin stated that, during the course of the civil proceedings, Šekarić transferred the real estate that was his property to his daughter by means of a gift contract, and that she was aware of the state of affairs and his claim.

"At the main hearing on July 26, 2022, the court issued a decision that the witness Bojo Šekarić would not be heard, since the factual situation has been sufficiently established by all the evidence presented, and the decision can be made in accordance with the state of the case files," the verdict states.

It was also explained that based on the established facts, and by applying the substantive provisions of the Law on Obligations, the court found that the claim was well-founded...

"In the specific case, the court has indisputably established that the basis of the final and enforceable judgment of the Basic Court in Herceg Novi P.br. 1/17 of 16. 5. 2019. was the execution for the purpose of settling the debt owed by the enforcement debtor Šekarić Bojo to the plaintiff SB, whereby the execution in question could not be carried out, since the enforcement debtor has no funds in his accounts, and given the fact that on 21. 2018. by a gift contract concluded before a notary... he disposed of his real estate... by giving it to his daughter... thus thwarting the possibility of settling the debt owed by the creditor to him," the judgment states, which, according to Marojević, was attributed to him...

In tomorrow's "News", read how loan sharks are trying to legalize illegal assets and the confession of one of the victims of long-time loan sharks...