The report of the State Audit Institution (DRI), which gave a double negative opinion to the Montenegrin Electric Distribution System (CEDIS) on the financial statements for 2022, does not reflect the factual situation and conclusions, that is, the DRI could not give a negative opinion to CEDIS, that in its the expert opinion is considered by the court expert in the field of economics, Milenko Popović.
His expert report was made at the request of CEDIS, and for the purposes of the investigative procedure, which was initiated by the Special State Prosecutor's Office (SDT) based on the opinion of the SAI.
On February 14 of this year, SAI announced that it had given CEDIS a negative opinion on the audit of the annual financial statements for 2022 and a negative opinion on the audit of the regularity of operations. The audit was led by Senator Zoran Jelić, while the other member of the collegium was Senator Milan Dabović.
DON'T MISS IT
When a company receives a negative opinion from the SAI, the SDT automatically initiates an investigation and at the end of February it asked CEDIS for a statement on the SAI's report.
The SAI stated in its report that CEDIS does not have ownership documentation for part of the property, that they have 8,9 million euros in deferred tax liabilities, that they employed employees through an agreement on taking over employees without conducting a public advertisement, that they did not comply with the Law on Public Procurement but shared public procurement, mostly in the purchase of electric meters.
Popović states that the audit is against the methodology, that it is neither fair nor objective, and that the factual situation that would be necessary for a negative opinion has not been established.
"The final report of the SAI for CEDIS dated February 13, 2, in the financial audit and regularity audit, with reasonable belief, does not reflect the factual situation and conclusions, because there are no significant errors in the available documentation and the audit report itself, there is no error measurement below the threshold materiality, which was not determined in the report either quantitatively or qualitatively, i.e. there are no material errors above the usual threshold of materiality, and errors below the threshold of materiality are not considered significant when forming audit reports, nor is there documented a pervasive character, which would have an impact on the accuracy and the veracity of the financial reports for 2024, nor the determination of the regularity of financial and other actions of the subject of audit in order to comply with applicable laws and other regulations", said Popović.
He also states that the SAI report "does not provide essential information related to asset management and economic affairs, as well as related to legal behavior on the part of the subject of the audit and improvement of his ability to successfully accomplish tasks and prevent wrongdoing in order to eliminate possible deficiencies, because the advisory recommendations given are primarily selective, partly discriminatory and at least advisory and instructive".
"The final report of the SAI was prepared in accordance with the provisions of Articles 67 to 69 of the Instructions on the Audit Methodology, because the audit results are not presented in an easily understandable way, they are not clear, they are not unambiguous and they are not complete, nor are they objective and fair, nor do they include only information that is supported with sufficient and appropriate audit evidence, both in the general part, as well as in the established factual situation, opinion and recommendations", stated Popović.
Čađenović: In the opinion of the SAI, there was evil intent
The Executive Director of CEDIS, Vladimir Čađenović, when asked by "Vijesti" why they requested the opinion of a court expert on the SAI report, said that they did so because of suspicions that the SAI report was constructed in order to cause a double negative opinion.
He stated that the expert's report was submitted to the SDT, which asked them for a statement, as well as to the relevant Ministry of Energy and Mining.
"We believe that the opinion of the SAI arose from the evil intention of those who managed the audit, as well as that the SDT, regardless of the status of the SAI, should check how this report came about," said Čađenović to "Vijesta".
Bonus video:
