Threats of charges and falsification of evidence: Turmoil at the trial of former ASK officials

A dispute over an official phone and a receipt for its use marked yesterday's hearing in the case against the former director of the Agency for the Prevention of Corruption (ASK). Jelena Perović and her assistants Nina Paović, during which mutual accusations were made of falsifying evidence, concealing documentation, and selective action by the prosecution.

The hearing before the Podgorica Higher Court focused almost entirely on the disputed device and the document that the defense proposed as evidence, the credibility of which the prosecution disputes.

The issue of that phone, according to the allegations in the file, refers to the "Samsung A53" device, which is also mentioned in the indictment of the Special State Prosecutor's Office (SDT), which charges Perović, among other things, with giving the Agency's official phones for use to family members and other persons, so the discussion about the validity of the receipt in the courtroom escalated into mutual accusations of forgery and concealment of evidence.

"The prosecution expresses reasonable doubt about the authenticity of the reverse," said the special prosecutor. Maja Janković, referring to the case files and previously submitted documentation, including a letter signed by Paović during a search of the Agency's premises by the Special Police Department (SPO), stating that "it is not known what happened to the phone in question and whether it is in charge."

She pointed out that now, after the passage of time, the question arises as to how Paović "remembered" that phone number and submitted the receipt, which had not previously been submitted to either the prosecution or the court.

"This reverse is a pre-prepared form... printed from a computer, signed in ink, and not registered as a fixed asset, which has been indisputably established from the material evidence and witness statements," said Janković.

She added that she would not comment on how Paović came into possession of the document and how it was found in the ASK premises, but that the prosecution would investigate doubts about its authenticity, stating that it was obtained in order to "facilitate their position in this criminal matter."

To this, Paović responded that such allegations show "selective actions by the prosecution", accusing the Agency's management of being the ones who hid the disputed receipt.

"Instead of addressing why the Agency's management hid the receipt, the prosecution is drawing public attention and imputing that I forged the order," she said.

She pointed out that she had not entered the ASK premises since June 2024, nor was she allowed to retrieve personal belongings that were left in an open closet in the hallway, stating that it was illogical that she could have obtained the document.

Speaking about the letter she had previously signed, she said that it occurred during the second entry of SPO officers into the Agency, when, as she claims, she was told that they were "strictly forbidden to communicate with her by prosecutor Maja Janković", but that as deputy director she had to communicate with the officers.

"When they were looking for phones, I remembered the iPhone that was malfunctioning, which was used on business trips. It is true that I wrote that I did not know if anyone had charged the Samsung, because I thought it was a different phone," said Paović.

Paović announced criminal charges

During her presentation, she also announced that she would file criminal charges against the signatory of the disputed document for forging an official document, calling on the prosecution to investigate why, as she claims, ASK knowingly concealed that order.

"Knowing who wrote the letter and what their relationship was with the prosecution, this was the only way for them to preserve their illegal work," said Paović.

Her defense attorney Petar Martinovic, assessed that this was an "extremely abstract situation", stating that Paović actually influenced the document to be submitted to the court.

"Since she was unable to enter the ASK premises, especially considering that I am not allowed to take her personal belongings either, it is illogical that she could have influenced the document to be delivered to the court," said Martinović, adding that the defense "refuted the accusations with words and material evidence."

Defense Attorney Perović, attorney Nikola Martinovic, he claimed that there were identical reverse charges for other phones, including those charged to his client.

"I have evidence, unlike the prosecution. On March 3rd of this year, ASK requested a discharge for two phones registered in the name of Jelena Perović, so there is no reason not to carry out the same procedure for Paović," he said.

Perović accused several institutions of manipulating evidence.

"The greatest blessing in the misfortune of conducting the proceedings against me and Paović is that the SPO, SDT and ASK do not know what we have and what we do not have of the original documentation, so the evidence was falsified accordingly," she said.

She added that the phone was obtained from Montenegrin "Telekom", delivered to the accounting department and later seized during a search.

"If we didn't have this wallet and hadn't noticed it was missing, we would have stolen the phone," said Perović, adding that "it's realistic that someone wouldn't know which phone it was because they're all very similar."

Prosecutor Janković countered that the key question remains - the origin of the document.

"At no point did Paović indicate where she got the copy of the receipt," she said, adding that the prosecution, if necessary, will form a new case or forward the allegations to the competent prosecution to assess the existence of criminal offenses, including forgery of an official document or obstruction of evidence.

Paović, however, claimed that the phone was not concealed, referring to a letter from the acting director of ASK, Dušan Drakić, which, she states, confirmed the seizure of two devices, including a "Samsung".

"This evidence refutes the current management's claim that the phone was stolen. It's not our fault that the accounting department didn't do its job," she said.

Perović explained that when borrowing something at ASK, one copy is received by the person borrowing the phone, and the other copy remains in the institution's archives.

"Immediately before my arrest, we introduced the practice of placing these copies in the employee's personal file and from there we receive a receipt, just like any employee who has been entrusted with any matter. If they had remained in the office, they would obviously have been removed to make our position more difficult," said Perović.

The prosecutor ultimately stated that there was a possibility that Paović could not remember which phone it was at the time she wrote the letter, but that, as she said, "at the time the documentation was submitted, she could remember that the phone was at her home and that her mother was using it."

The SDT charges Perović and Paović with multiple criminal offenses, including abuse of official position and forgery of official documents. The indictment charges them, among other things, with illegally obtaining financial benefits through fictitious overtime and official travel, as well as misusing Agency resources, including paying for telephone expenses for family members.