Jelena Perović is also on trial for tax evasion.

The Basic State Prosecutor's Office (ODT) charges the former director of the Agency for the Prevention of Corruption Jelena Perović for tax and contribution evasion, in connection with an apartment that she, as a judge, bought on favorable terms and then sold.

"In the case formed upon the indictment of the Basic State Prosecutor's Office in Podgorica against the defendant Jelena Perović for the criminal offense of tax and contribution evasion, within the factual description of the enacting clause of the indictment, the action relates to the sale of an apartment that was previously purchased on favorable terms," ​​the Podgorica Basic Court responded to "Vijesti".

The tax evasion case was assigned to a judge Dragan Lubarda.

Last summer, the Basic Court issued a decision according to which the former director of the Agency for the Prevention of Corruption is obliged to return 58.539,7 euros to the state, plus default interest, because she sold an 87-square-meter apartment that she received on favorable terms, but failed to fulfill the obligation and remained in her judicial position for five years.

Attorney Perović, lawyer Nikola Martinovic He asked the High Court to overturn the Basic Court's decision.

Martinović claims in his appeal that the reasons given in the reasoning of the verdict of the judge of the Podgorica Basic Court Mirza Ademović "vague and contradictory".

He reiterated in his appeal that "there was no breach of contract, because the notarial deed UZZ No. 05/218 of 11.01.2018. is, in its content, a preliminary contract, which cannot constitute rights and obligations, except for the obligation to later conclude the main contract."

The state initiated the dispute against the former director of the Agency after the initiative of the Network for the Affirmation of the Non-Governmental Sector (MANS), at the end of November 2022.

MANS then appealed to the institution of the Protector of Property and Legal Interests to request compensation for damages on behalf of the state due to non-fulfillment of the contractual obligation when purchasing an apartment on favorable terms.

Martinović also states in his appeal that the Ademović verdict "does not state what the specific damage" suffered by the state consists of.

"...Because just stating that any contract has been broken (and in this particular case it is a pre-contract), is not enough to establish the existence of damages. Therefore, the court was obliged to state specific facts and reasons for which it considers that the plaintiff was damaged, which the judgment does not contain. Therefore, only the contract that establishes the rights, and not the pre-contract that only obligates the conclusion of the main contract, can be the basis for re-examining whether the fulfillment or non-fulfillment of its provisions has resulted in damage", asserts Perović's attorney.

"In the case formed upon the indictment of the Basic State Prosecutor's Office in Podgorica against the defendant Jelena Perović for the criminal offense of tax and contribution evasion, within the factual description of the dispositive part of the indictment, the action refers to the sale of an apartment that was previously purchased on favorable terms," ​​the Podgorica Basic Court responded to "Vijesti"

Martinović also points out that "the statements in the verdict that the fact that the plaintiff was not registered as the owner of the apartment in question is not of any influence for a different ruling, because that circumstance is not prescribed anywhere as mandatory, so that the defendant could claim the damage in question, are self-contradictory ".

In the first-instance verdict published by "Vijesti" at the beginning of August, judge Ademović emphasizes that "the defendant's thesis was that the contract for sale on favorable terms is a pre-contract in its content."

"If the pre-contract in question does not produce legal effect without the conclusion of the main contract, as stated by the defendant, the question arises as to how she could then transfer the same apartment to a third party and transfer the rights and obligations to that person, i.e. give consent that the buyer can to be registered in the real estate cadastre, and finally, if that legal reason of the defendant stands, the question arises - how would the defendant collect the purchase price from the buyer", the judgment specified.

31.960,3 euros is the price at which Perović obtained the apartment on favorable terms, only to sell it for 73.000. According to the first-instance verdict, which her attorney has appealed, she must return 58.539,7 euros to the state, plus default interest. Her attorney is asking the Higher Court to annul the Basic Court verdict.

The Special State Prosecutor's Office filed an indictment against Perović on November 28, charging her with abuse of office and forgery of official documents. The indictment also includes former ASK assistant director Nina Paović. The SDT suspects that Perović committed multiple, ongoing criminal offenses related to abuse of office and forgery of official documents. The review of the indictment has been postponed several times, and a new attempt is scheduled for April 10.