Brother of the former Prime Minister and President of Montenegro Milo Đukanović, a businessman Aco Djukanovic He told the court that he has millions of capital, which, according to the Basic Court in Nikšić, allows him to organize his life outside Montenegro without any problems.
Therefore, the panel rejected the appeal of his defense attorneys and confirmed his detention.
The Court considers that such financial power increases the risk that Đukanović, if released, would become inaccessible to domestic judicial authorities.
The explanation states that his economic strength allows him to organize his life and stay abroad without relying on third parties or state support.
"This includes the possibility of regulating residence status through various legal institutions that are more accessible to persons with significant capital," the decision states.
According to the council, such circumstances objectively reduce his existential attachment to Montenegro and increase the possibility of his long-term stay beyond the reach of domestic judicial authorities.
The court also particularly valued information about his previous travels abroad.
The case file shows that Đukanović has left Montenegro several times in the last few months, and one stay lasted as long as 103 days continuously.
"Such a duration of stay cannot be considered a short-term trip, but rather indicates the ability to organize life outside the territory of the state for a longer period of time, as well as the existence of a certain degree of personal and social contacts abroad. In this sense, the frequency and length of stays represent an objective indicator of the degree of mobility and international connections of the defendant," the panel assessed.
The Court concluded that the frequency and length of his stays constituted an objective indicator of mobility and international connections.
"The defendant's financial power, viewed in relation to his previous pattern of movement and residence abroad, does not represent a hypothetical or abstract circumstance, but a concrete factor that influences the assessment of the risk of his inaccessibility to the court if he were to be released," the ruling states.
Djukanovic's defense attorneys, lawyer Neda Ivović, and her colleagues Nikola Martinovic i Slobodan Stasevic, The Sabac lawyer argued in his appeal that the purpose of ensuring his presence in the proceedings could be achieved through milder measures, such as confiscation of his passport or surveillance measures.
However, the council assessed that such measures would not be sufficient.
The court states that the defendant, given his financial capabilities and previous stays abroad, could take advantage of his release to avoid further criminal proceedings.
When making its decision, the court also took into account the fact that Đukanović is facing criminal proceedings on suspicion of committing the criminal offense of illegal possession and carrying of weapons and explosives, which carries a prison sentence of one to six years.
HE INHERITED THE HOUSE FROM HIS PARENTS
The explanation also states that during a search of the house in the Nikšić neighborhood of Rastoci, which Đukanović uses, several firearms, ammunition, and protective equipment were found.
In his defense, Đukanović stated that he inherited a house from his parents in the Nikšić settlement of Rastoci, where weapons and ammunition were found, adding that he was not aware that any of his family members had lent that building to other people for use.
According to the documentation in the case files, the police found hunting rifles, pistols, a small-caliber rifle, several hundred rounds of ammunition of various calibers, as well as bulletproof vests and optical equipment.
According to data from the Police Directorate, a check of the records determined that the defendant does not have a registered firearm nor does he possess a valid firearms license.
The court assessed that the evidence collected, including the search report, the certificate of temporarily seized items, and photographic documentation, indicated the existence of a reasonable suspicion that the criminal offense with which he is charged was committed.
When making its decision, the Council emphasized that detention is the strictest measure to ensure the presence of the defendant, but that it is justified in this specific case.
"Taking into account all the circumstances, the court finds that the detention, both in terms of its duration and its severity, does not violate the principle of proportionality in relation to the criminal offense with which the defendant is charged," the ruling states.
The court also assessed that no milder measure of procedural coercion could eliminate the risk of flight.
Therefore, the panel rejected the defense attorneys' appeals as unfounded and upheld the decision of the investigating judge, stating that the evidence collected so far during the proceedings indicates the existence of reasonable suspicion as a substantive and legal basis for ordering detention, while the final substantive truth will be determined in the further stages of the criminal proceedings.
The decision states that the gravity of the criminal offense and the possibility of imposing a relatively high prison sentence may affect the defendant's attitude towards state authorities, or his response to their summons if he were to be released.
It is also stated that Đukanović, according to his own account, is "a businessman and the largest shareholder of Prva Banka, and that he believes that his capital is measured in millions," which is why the court assesses that he has significant financial resources.
SEARCHES AND ARREST
The brother of the long-serving prime minister and president of the state was arrested on the night of February 27th and 28th, after a search of the family home in the Nikšić neighborhood of Rastoci.
The Police Directorate announced that officers from the Crime Prevention Sector, with the support of the Special Police Unit and inspectors from the Regional Security Centers "Center" and "West", searched several Đukanović's buildings and premises in Podgorica and Nikšić on February 27 and the night of February 28, based on orders from the competent prosecutor's offices and courts.
The police stated that during the search of the apartment in Podgorica, certain documentation was seized, which the prosecutor's office was notified of, and that "a case will be opened regarding the above for the purpose of further proceedings."
During the search in Nikšić, the police, according to the statement, found a large quantity of firearms and ammunition - a "Mauser" hunting carbine with an optical sight, a "Brno" rifle with a "Busnell" optic, a shotgun and a pistol of unknown brand, an "M-48" hunting carbine, as well as a "CZ 99 para" pistol with a frame containing five bullets and a firearms license in the name of a deceased family member. They also stated that over 400 pieces of ammunition of various brands and calibers, three empty frames, five ballistic body armor and "Zeiss" binoculars were found.
The ruling of the Basic Court in Nikšić also states that Đukanović, according to his own account, is "a businessman and the largest shareholder of Prva Banka, and that he believes that his capital is measured in millions," which is why the court assesses that he has significant financial resources.
Defense attorney Martinović, however, claimed that some of the weapons found in the house belonged to Milo Đukanović, stating that "some rifles with inscriptions" to his brother were found, as well as weapons that belonged to their late father, for which, he said, there is documentation.
He announced that Đukanović agreed to have everything examined by an expert, that DNA was taken, and that the defense expects the findings to show that the suspect has no connection to the disputed rifles.
However, former head of state Milo Đukanović never reported to the competent Agency for the Prevention of Corruption that he had a single weapon registered in his name or received as a gift.
ASK announced this to "Vijesti", announcing that they will initiate new proceedings against the former public official - to determine whether he broke the law.
No proof of treatment abroad
The Nikšić Basic Court panel also considered the defense's appeal allegations that the 103-day stay abroad was related to the surgical intervention and treatment of the defendant's wife.
However, the court found that the defense had not provided adequate evidence to support such claims.
In doing so, as stated, the court took the length and frequency of the defendant's stays abroad as a relevant fact, and not the reason for them.
The court also rejected the defense's claims that the possession of significant capital cannot be a relevant circumstance when assessing the risk of flight.
As stated in the decision, the court does not assume that mere possession of capital automatically means developed connections abroad, but rather assesses this circumstance in the context of the totality of the established facts.
Considering all of the above, the Panel concluded that this case is not an abstract one, but a real and concrete danger of flight, arising from personal and objective circumstances on the part of the defendant.
In the court's opinion, this danger can only be prevented by ordering detention, because the defendant, if he were at large, could take advantage of such a position to avoid further criminal proceedings.
See more:
Download the app and follow the news
FOLLOW US ON
