A friend will lend you money, but it's very dangerous: Lending in Montenegro (30)

Several loan sharks, according to Vijesti's interlocutors, operate according to a standard pattern - they transfer the victims to each other, pretending that the money is not theirs, but that they are just "jumping in" through friends whom, as they emphasize, "no one should ever cheat."

Several victims told almost the same story: when they needed a larger sum of money, acquaintances from that circle would first say they couldn't help, and then they would "find a solution."

They would allegedly secure money from "dangerous people", those who cannot be late even for an hour...

The debtor thus enters into debt from the start with the feeling that he is already late, explains one of them.

"The interest was piling up, and my friend, who was supposedly just a guarantor, pressured me and made up stories that he too had problems, that he was being threatened... He called me every minute, came to my house, stalked me. When I had barely gotten rid of the debts, I found out that the money was his, that they were playing double-cross with the victims all the time. One 'gives' to his own people, the other 'gives' to friends, neighbors... those who are in trouble and who, mostly out of distress, turn to them. The role of guarantor is to make us, who did not take the money out of anger, feel like someone did us a favor. And when you believe that someone has 'given their word' for you, you are never at peace, you are afraid of causing them a problem. It is psychological terror," the newspaper's interlocutor said.

According to him, the "guarantor" is both a shoulder to cry on and a beating:

"First he calms me down, promises to 'find the man', and then he becomes a channel for pressure - threats, blackmail, humiliation, sometimes physical violence. All with one message: debt is not repaid only with interest, but with fear. I didn't believe he did the same thing to me, but I checked when a mutual friend wanted to borrow money - I followed him after he told him he had to go and get him money from a dangerous friend. He didn't go anywhere, he gave him his money, but an hour later...", adds the interviewee.

They know who is the cruelest.

The same thing happened to a family from Cetinje, who were the last to find out that their son had fallen into interest debt due to online betting:

"When it came to collection, the debt was already 25 thousand euros. His godfathers, as we later realized, had set it up. When they saw that he couldn't pay it back, only then did they tell us. We returned the money"...

Several people from Danilovgrad, Podgorica and Cetinje have identified several Cetinje and Danilovgrad loan sharks as those who transfer debtors to one another, and then, due to "guarantees" and "given word", increase the debt with "penalties" and interest on interest for the slightest delay.

In this intricate network used to capture victims, the money almost always goes to whoever appears as a "friend" and guarantees the person who needs a loan, say Vijesti's interlocutors, citing the model according to which this team of collaborators in the criminal business functions.

Among those who, according to the claims of Vijesti's interlocutors, stand out for their cruelty and psychological abuse of debtors are two brothers from Cetinje and two brothers from Danilovgrad, one of whom has been living in Serbia for decades.

According to Vijesti, their names, along with thousands of others, are listed in the security sector's data as loan sharks...

However, most of them were not arrested for usury, but eight from Danilovgrad and Cetinje are mentioned in the case opened for that criminal offense, in which the prosecution is still proceeding...

Vijesti's research showed that cases involving usury most often fail before judicial authorities.

The Police Directorate previously officially told the newspaper that loan sharking is difficult to prove, because victims do not report it or withdraw after they do.

This is also shown by the data, according to which, even when the trial comes, victims most often change their minds and change their statements under pressure, explaining that the loan shark only helped them at one point...

In the last five years, a total of 39 proceedings have been conducted before all Montenegrin courts for the criminal offense of usury.

They are judging in vain.

However, individuals tried to prove before the Basic, Higher, Supreme and finally Constitutional Courts that they had been deceived and that they had entered into fictitious, usurious contracts under duress...

This is also the case with our interlocutor from Herceg Novi, who was left homeless due to her husband's business "venture".

“The husband borrowed 40.000 euros as a business partner with a Ukrainian woman SS "for the purchase of a plot of land. They were supposed to build a villa. She gave him the money and asked him to sign a receipt for 5 percent interest per month, which he did. When the construction with the Russians stopped, and he could not continue the work because there were no investors, she asked him to repay the debt. He returned half of the money to her friend, who usually gives money at interest and always took over the money for them so that she would remain 'clean'. However, he did not want to write him a receipt saying that he had returned the 20.000 euros, and not long after, the Ukrainian woman, on the advice of a lawyer, sued him for both the debt and the interest," she told Vijesti.

She adds that in the end they calculated that her husband owed them 80.000 euros.

"They didn't even acknowledge the 20.000 euros, because there was no receipt, what about this debt they invented, totaling 100.000 euros. One prosecutor testified in her favor, saying that he knew that the money was given, but allegedly didn't know about the interest. At one point, I, who had not done business with the Ukrainian woman, started receiving threatening emails, which I reported, but in vain," said the interviewee.

She points out that even the courts did not help her in protecting her property, because the opposing party, with the help of "expensive" lawyers, managed to win the dispute in the High Court.

"In the end, they handed the case over to the bailiff from Herceg Novi to sell me three apartments for that amount. She threw us out onto the street, without the possibility of us selling the property and paying off the debt they imposed on us," she said, providing the journalist with the verdict and a screenshot of the emails in which she was threatened.

He appealed to the Constitutional Court

Before all court instances in Montenegro, a Swiss citizen of Montenegrin origin SS He disputed the contract that was formally presented as the sale of his house in Sutorina, claiming that there was no actual sale and payment of money, but that it was a simulated deal backed by extortion.

In a constitutional appeal filed with the Constitutional Court of Montenegro against the Supreme Court's ruling (Rev 81/13 of 10 May 2013), he states that the contract and the accompanying statement on receipt of money do not reflect real will, but were signed under pressure and in a state of fear.

An insight into the decisions made before the Constitutional Court was approached shows that the courts previously accepted the opposing party's claims and rejected the counterclaims for the nullity of the contract.

The Supreme Court rejected the revision, ruling that the defendant had not proven the allegations of nullity and duress.

They rejected the defendant's appeal in the dispute over the termination of a real estate purchase contract as unfounded. This confirmed the judgment of the Higher Court in Podgorica, which upheld the decision of the Basic Court in Herceg Novi - that the contract concluded on November 13, 2009, be terminated, and that the defendant be obliged to return 200.000 euros to the plaintiff for the paid part of the purchase price.

The Supreme Court states that the defendant did not prove the claims of absolute nullity of the contract or of coercion and threats, and that the lower courts provided “complete and proper reasons”.

They argue that, according to the established facts, the remainder of the purchase price was conditioned on the defendant's obligation to obtain a building permit within 30 days, which he failed to do either within the given deadline or later.

In the Constitutional Appeal, whose "fate" is unknown to Vijesti, it was explained that the lawsuit arose from a contract that was formally presented as the sale of a house in Sutorina.

The complaint expressly states:

"The simulated legal transaction of this real estate sale is in reality a disguised extortion. The cause of the simulated legal transaction is coercion, kidnapping, grave and serious threats, in order to extort 200.000 euros... The court justified this clearly illegal undertaking as a valid legal transaction and even gave it legal authority, with a now final judgment."

The complainant also states that before the Basic Court in Herceg Novi, in his opinion, "there were no basic conditions for a fair trial", and that he was "denied the right to a fair trial, through biased conduct of the proceedings".

As an illustration of what he considers to be “empty” reasoning, he cites in his appeal the formulations from the second-instance decision:

“The first instance court provided valid reasons for its decision, which the court accepts and refers the appellant to,” and “The lower instance courts provided complete and correct reasons.

He particularly questions the decision-making dynamics of the Higher Court in Podgorica, claiming that the dates in the files indicate an unusually short deadline of six working days.

"...So it turns out that in six working days the appeal was submitted to Herceg Novi, the file arrived in Podgorica, assigned to the panel...then the file was studied, the appeal was read, the response to the appeal was read and in those six days the verdict was issued. In the judgment of the Higher Court, on page 2 it says: 'The response to the appeal was not filed', the decision on the temporary measure of prohibition of the defendant's sale of 'real estate that was sold a long time ago' was confirmed, in the introduction to the judgment there is no indication that the defendant has an attorney and from the reasoning it is clear as day that neither the appeal nor the file were simply read", it is written in that appeal.

It was emphasized that, when a prosecutor convicted of serious crimes is placed in the given context, "his partner, the famous MJ, a lawyer and former judge, now a lawyer, the prosecutor's attorney, something is seriously wrong here."

"It is not possible, it is not realistic, it is not according to the law, it is not according to the Court Rules, it is not according to the basic order of things, it is not according to the elementary logical and conceptual order, it is not reasonable for all of this to happen in six days. But, since all of this really happened in six days according to the documented dates, then this review is not only the subject of the Supreme Court's assessment from the point of view of review reasons, but primarily of the Supreme State Prosecutor to review the six-day journey and decision-making, by requesting a report from the Basic Court in Herceg Novi, and then a report from the Higher Court in Podgorica, and until the verdict. This is a prerequisite and condition of all conditions. Since the second instance did not read either the file or the appeal, the defendant reinterpreted it. The legal transaction between the litigants is simulated in terms of the cause, and fictitious in terms of the consequences. The simulated legal transaction of the sale of real estate is in reality a disguised extortion. The cause of the simulated legal transaction is coercion, kidnapping, serious and serious threats, in order to extort 200.000 euros", the complaint says...

"Conditions not met"

In one of the decisions, which Vijesti had access to, in June 2024, the Supreme Court rejected as unfounded a revision filed against the judgment of the Higher Court, which sought to determine the nullity of the Purchase and Sale Agreement for a family residential building in Podgorica, which consisted of a residential area of ​​62 square meters, a business area of ​​36 square meters and a yard of 379 m2, for a purchase price of 30.000 euros.

The plaintiffs based their claim on the claim that it was a usurious loan, as well as a fictitious contract.

According to the case files, it was established that in 2002, the first-degree plaintiff borrowed the amount of 10.000 euros from the defendants' legal predecessor, who is no longer alive, with an interest rate of 9 percent per month, in order to start a business, and that they concluded a purchase and sale agreement for a family house and plot of land...

"The provision of Article 141 of the Law on Obligations in force at the time of its conclusion... stipulates that a contract is void if someone, taking advantage of the state of necessity or the difficult financial situation of another, his insufficient experience, frivolity or dependence, contracts for himself or a third party a benefit that is clearly disproportionate to what he gave or did to the other, or undertook to give or do. Therefore, in accordance with the cited legal provision, for the existence of a usurious contract, the two aforementioned conditions - subjective and objective - must be cumulatively met," the decision states...

It was explained that the intention of the plaintiffs, whose review was rejected, in this specific case was to start a business, which does not represent a state of dire need or necessity, nor did the plaintiffs prove their difficult financial situation, the existence of debts to third parties, unemployment, failure to generate income...

"Therefore, the subject Purchase Agreement is not a usurious contract, because the subjective condition that, in accordance with the cited legal provision, must be cumulatively fulfilled with the prescribed objective condition has not been met... Also, the conclusion of the lower courts is correct that this is not a sham or simulated legal transaction that conceals the security for the loan given, in the sense of the provision of Article 66 of the same ZOO, which stipulates in paragraph 1 that a sham contract has no effect between the contracting parties, and in paragraph 2 that if a sham contract conceals another contract, that other contract is valid if the conditions for its legal validity are met," the decision states.

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.

We swear by them every day.

A family from Podgorica, who saved their sister and brother-in-law from loan sharks, wrote to Vijesti about their experience with cruel loan sharks from Zabjelo, who, they claim, are destroying numerous families...

"They took our sister and brother-in-law's car, apartment, and ransacked them... A debt of 4.000 euros has grown to 200.000 euros. We sold everything our parents left us, and everything we earned ourselves, to help them. We sold two houses, two apartments, now we are all tenants and live miserably, but we don't owe anyone anything," they claim.

They add that they want, in a criminal-legal sense, "to see an end to these devils, who torture many, take their property, and forcefully take them to notaries to have everything written down for them"...

Explaining why they did not report the loan sharks, they state that "this group of illiterate loan sharks is enjoying themselves, and no one can do anything to them, as if the system is protecting them"...

"We swear at them (loan sharks) every day... We didn't have the courage to report them to the police, because we don't trust the police," they wrote, leaving information about the place, which they claim is owned by the "main" loan shark from Zabjelo, and the name of that Podgorica resident...

"He and his group are ravaging the country - drugs, car smuggling, car theft, interest... That place is just a cover... We are all intellectuals, but now we live like dogs, we don't remember when we sat down in a restaurant to eat lunch... We hope there is someone who will investigate all this, and that is easy, just send them away or take away the vehicles they stole," they concluded...

In tomorrow's "News", read what the Basic and Higher State Prosecutor's Offices are doing in the case of the death of a young Danilovgrad resident, who was in the jaws of a loan shark, and the confession of his father...