Response from a journalist from "Vijesti": The public must also know about the disputes of the Central Bank of Montenegro

The Central Bank, in its response to the article "54,3 million euros unlocked for clients," states that it contains misleading and inaccurate statements.

The first sentence of the text clearly states that the High Court in Podgorica, at the request of several clients of Adriatic Bank, annulled the measures to block transactions worth 54,3 million euros requested by the prosecution. The Central Bank is not mentioned anywhere in the text in the statements about this case.

The text also contains a statement from the Vice Governor Milan Remiković who said that the Central Bank of Montenegro did not request the blocking of money from Adriatic Bank clients, but rather the judicial and prosecutorial authorities. So, no conclusion can be drawn about misleading the public to the detriment of the Central Bank of Montenegro.

The text was written based on the report of the auditor of Adriatic Bank, which, in addition to this case, which was won in court by the bank's clients, also lists two court cases initiated by the bank against the Central Bank's measures.

The Central Bank of Montenegro states that this is incorrect because the disputes were not initiated by Atlas Bank, but rather that this is a misdemeanor order that the Central Bank of Montenegro, within its legal jurisdiction, initiated due to established irregularities.

The text they are reacting to clearly states that the Central Bank imposed fines worth 3,6 million euros on Adriatic Bank in 2024 for violating the Law on the Prevention of Money Laundering and Financing of Terrorism, after which Adriatic Bank initiated two court cases over the imposition of these fines and measures, and that both of these court cases are ongoing.

In its denial, the CBCG insists that these are exclusively “misdemeanor proceedings initiated by the CBCG,” thereby attempting to challenge the formulation “disputes.” However, the fact that these proceedings are subject to judicial decision-making, that they have been contested before a competent court, and that they are the subject of proceedings between the institution and the bank is precisely the reason why the term “dispute” is used in journalistic practice. The change in terminology does not change the essence: these are court proceedings in which the decisions of the regulator are reviewed.

So, there is nothing incorrect, let alone misleading.

The Central Bank of Montenegro (CBCG) is questioning the statement of a source from “Vijesti” who explains the nature of the dispute and possible consequences. The essence of journalism is to explain to readers the possible consequences of disputes and decisions of state bodies. The CBCG states that “the presentation of speculative claims by an anonymous interlocutor, which prejudges that the possible outcome of certain court proceedings could result in major financial damage for the Central Bank and the state, is particularly worrying.”

Neither "Vijesti" nor our interlocutor prejudge the outcome of the court proceedings, but rather point out that after the measures of the prosecutor's office and the Central Bank of Montenegro, there was a decline in Adriatic Bank's income, deposits and profits, and that "in the event that the Central Bank of Montenegro loses these disputes, they may seek compensation for direct financial damage and damaged personal reputation." Therefore, it is only explained what is possible in the event of losing the court case.

It was also pointed out that Adriatic Bank itself states that the chance of winning the dispute is 50 percent. So there is no prejudice or incorrect allegations, just standard journalistic reporting.

Goran Kapor