Radulović said that what he has seen so far does not encourage him when it comes to the fight against usury.
"We citizens don't need teams to be formed and work on reviewing cases, we don't need self-praise, we don't need a police director who will threaten journalists because he doesn't like the questions... They need to do their job, the prosecution to do their job, as well as the court. Both the executive and legislative branches of government should provide that legal framework that will be a better tool. But it's in vain if this practice remains as it is now, with the police and prosecution so passive and under suspicion of participating in this," he said.
When asked by Komnenić how much we have "moved" since the DPS era, Jovanović said that she wants to believe that things are better, but that everything her interlocutors are saying denies her.
"Although knowing who is at the head of this team that the police formed, I believe that they will do something in this segment. But I was worried that my sources did not include several names from Danilovgrad that I personally know about in the data they collected from the field. So there is still some branch somewhere that is protecting them. I truly believe that the police will manage to identify what happened with Ražnatović's report, with all the reports from before, and who all these people my interlocutors are talking about, so that it is not that 'Vijesti' is a miscarriage of justice," she stated.
"I think this is the most serious aspect of this story, because these extortionate legal deals that are null and void by law are gaining a kind of institutional legitimacy, and that is very dangerous. If one person concludes several such deals where payment is made in cash, that could be one of the indicators for suspicion among notaries. The Notary Chamber should deal with this. I am convinced that most notaries work professionally and according to the law. And these cases that are mentioned, if true, are the most damaging to the Notary and Bar Chambers, and that is why they should be more actively involved," Radulović assessed.
Jovanović said that the testimonies of the sources repeat the names of certain notaries, predominantly those working in the southern region of the country.
"What others (notaries) did not want to see will hopefully be revealed when it is time to turn this operational data into evidence in some of the proceedings, because by simply searching the properties of some of the people I have on my list, I saw that they have fabulously valuable assets. My sources explained to me that in some cases they hide the property of loan sharks in their own names and receive money for it, and in a certain number it is their property that was earned in this way," the journalist added.
Jovanović said that there were notaries who did not want to save contracts for loan sharks and that Ćurić should have known that.
"In one of the texts, the interviewee who lives far from Montenegro clearly indicated that in that robbery of her property, she was taken to a notary, Mr. Lekić, who refused to draw up that contract. The president of the Chamber of Notaries should know this. He may not have held that position at the time, but he should have known that someone was refusing to do so. Not someone, but many. She found it suspicious, but a few hours later they took her to another notary in the city center, where ready-made contracts were waiting for her and everything was arranged, and they explained to her that Lekić is an old man who does not understand what they want to conclude in front of him. Which means that there are still those who are not accomplices, who see and do not want to be part of this hell through which I think there is no family that has not been affected, at least in a broader sense," Jovanović said.
The President of the Notary Chamber of Montenegro, Darko Ćurić, said that, to his knowledge, no notary has so far reported to the competent authorities a suspicion that a criminal act - usury - was involved in concluding a legal transaction.
He said this in an interview with the editor and host of the show "Načisto" Petar Komnenić, broadcast tonight.
When asked whether there are clear indicators and patterns of behavior of parties that can warn a notary that a certain legal transaction could have elements of usury, Ćurić said that there are no precisely defined indicators.
"A contract is the agreement of the wills of two contracting parties. Only in the event that there are so-called defects of will, or that someone makes such a contract due to a mistake, under duress, or threat, can this be noticed. However, the parties would have to indicate the possible existence of these defects of will through their behavior," he explained.
He said that a notary, by law, can refuse to conclude a legal transaction when it is prohibited by law, or when he suspects that it is intended to harm third parties, or to avoid obligations to the state.
If a criminal offense is suspected, he points out, the notary is also obliged to inform the competent authorities, but Ćurić says that, to his knowledge, this has not happened so far when it comes to usury, but that it happened "quite a long time ago" when it comes to suspicion of another criminal offense.
"It's difficult to determine that. Those indicators you mention, probably no one has noticed them. Each notary is individually responsible for his work," he added.
Komnenić recalled that one of the articles in "Vijesti" mentioned a contract that was drawn up in Ćurić's office, which was later the subject of court proceedings and ended with a final verdict stating usury.
"Fictitious contract, yes," added Ćurić.
He says that in that particular case he acted fully in accordance with the Notary Law.
"There was no indication of any lack of will on the part of all contracting parties to conclude that contract," notes Ćurić.
He points out that the court also concluded in its verdict that the notary acted conscientiously and honestly, undertaking all legal obligations.
When asked who scheduled the meeting with him, Ćurić said that he couldn't remember it after 12 years.
"First there was a preliminary contract, then a contract. Between 20 and a month passed between them, which indicated the fact that the parties had not given up on such a contract."
He also points out that he had no prior agreements with people associated with loan sharking.
Komnenić asked if it was possible that he had been in agreement with someone else, and that then everything in the office went according to the rules.
"Believe me, I can't remember that, but that wasn't decisive for my actions," said Ćurić.
The Notary Chamber, as he said, is not competent to keep records of notary cases, "nor can it keep them."
"The Chamber only has the right to supervise the work of notaries, which is done periodically, once a year, or in the event of the need for extraordinary supervision."
When asked if they had any knowledge that some notaries do not submit contracts to the Financial Intelligence Unit, even though they are explicitly required to do so by law, Ćurić said that the "vast majority" do.
"We have information that one colleague did not submit and an initiative to initiate disciplinary proceedings was submitted against him for this," he added.
In the "Vijesti" feuilleton, Komnenić reminded us, it is written that some notaries and lawyers, according to operational data from the authorities, support usurers.
"I can't believe it, but I couldn't even swear to it, I can only speak for myself. 'Support for usurers', I don't know in what sense," Ćurić asked.
Komnenić explained that, according to the operatives' suspicions, there are people in every municipality who can get the job done more easily and who are willing to "turn a blind eye."
"I have no such information. I'm a little bothered by this 'name and surname are known to the editorial staff'. If anyone has any information, please inform the chamber," said Ćurić.
"In the midst of all this, we have two arrested teenagers - one 15, the other 18 - who, according to my information, lent a 16-year-old boy 100 euros and gave him sneakers on interest. And from January until the day they were prosecuted, they took 1.000 euros from him. We have this at the earliest age, I don't think it can be any lower than that," Jovanović pointed out.
"I know of a case where teenagers almost extorted money from a parent, and ended up taking his apartment," Komnenić added.
"Even when someone gathers the courage to report it, institutions have never protected that person to isolate them from the pressures of loan sharks and debt collectors. That is most often the reason why these proceedings in the prosecutor's office and court were dropped. And the penalties are not small, but terrible. And that is what citizens have been pointing out: even if I report him, if that report goes through, he will spend 5-6 months in prison and then I will have to pay him both for what he spent in prison and what I think I paid. What is necessary for the state to put an end to this is laws that will allow these cases to be investigated even when the victim withdraws," said Jovanović.
"How can someone at a notary's or in court certify that someone gave someone a million euros, without anyone asking them where they got the money from? That's the biggest mystery to me these days," she pointed out.
"Perhaps the Supreme State Prosecutor's Office should react after this series with some binding instructions that will try to change this current practice that does not yield results. If the institutions start doing their job and show some results, then people will start reporting. And not until then," Radulović believes.
DON'T MISS IT
Radulović said that the police and the prosecution did not do enough.
"Otherwise, we wouldn't have this situation if people didn't trust the institutions to report it. You don't have to be too smart to conclude what the reason is," he added.
"I assume that all my interlocutors told the absolute truth, and the authorities will determine that. One guy who was featured in the article as a loan shark sent evidence that the person who reported him to the prosecutor's office was actually someone who defrauded him and other people in that business of several million euros. But that should certainly be determined by the police and the prosecutor's office," Jovanović added.
"The strangest thing is that all those people who believed in us, now that this has heated up, have not gone to the police or the prosecutor's office to resolve their problem. I know several people who, after talking to me, went to report this newly formed team and I am glad about that, it means they are encouraged... Of course, among those who came forward there were those who tried to extort money in this way, so they threatened to publish in 'Vijesti' if one usurer did not cover another usurer's debts and forgive him his own," Jovanovi said.
Komnenić also said that some "escaped the show" because a few more interviews were scheduled that did not take place.
"Of course, I'm always happy when something moves or gets started, but I'm discouraged by the number of reports submitted to this team that was formed. There's that part in tomorrow's article, but it confirms everything my interlocutors told me. In the questionnaire, more than 90 percent of people said that they don't report usury because they are afraid of the people they go to to report it in most cases. Some of them listed which police officers sit with these usurers, some claimed in which bars they provide them with protection, which police officer advises people to take money at interest from a guy who lives next to the Security Center and leaves his name and surname," said Jovanović, reacting to the interview with Milanović that was broadcast.
The head of the Basic State Prosecutor's Office in Podgorica, Duško Milanović, said that a large number of cases related to the criminal offense of usury have not been filed.
In an interview with the editor and host of the show "Načisto" Petar Komnenić, broadcast tonight, Milanović added that he does not have data on how many such cases there are currently, but that from the annual reports of the State Prosecutor's Office, "the number is not very impressive."
He emphasizes that one must also take into account the fact that these are acts that are very difficult to prove.
Milanović says that he would encourage every injured party to come to the prosecutor's office to give statements, to offer evidence or suggest evidence that the prosecutor's office would obtain on its own initiative, and to "start this story with perhaps some new foundations."
When asked whether they review the decisions of prosecutors acting in usury cases, in which criminal charges were dismissed, he pointed out that every decision, or ruling on the dismissal of a criminal charge, is subject to review, and that the injured party has the right to file a complaint with the Higher State Prosecutor's Office in Podgorica.
Komnenić asked Milanović about a specific case involving prosecutor Slađana Španjević Volkov, who, according to the victim, rejected his complaint, alleging that he had not provided sufficient evidence that he was a victim of a loan shark. The Higher State Prosecutor's Office, the journalist reminded, also agreed with the decision of the primary prosecutor, and the Basic Court in Podgorica determined that it was a loan sharking case.
When asked what they had done, Milanović said that he was aware of the case and that he had checked it.
"I am not aware that the injured party has initiated a lawsuit in court. We will certainly review that decision. From the experience and work of the appointed prosecutor so far, I can say that she has always done her job conscientiously. Of course, if there are new facts and new evidence, we can also overturn that decision and initiate proceedings."
He said that it was definitive that there was no evidence at that moment, according to the prosecutor's position, and that this was confirmed as such by the Higher State Prosecutor's Office.
Komnenić followed up with: "But was it challenged by a court ruling in the end?"
"I'm not familiar with that part, I don't know, except what I read from the text published in 'Vijesti'. We will check that part and make a decision based on that," Milanović added.
He pointed out that in each specific case there must be reasons that "determine whether the prosecutor will make a decision in this or that direction."
Komnenić also pointed out that the ODT's work included a case formed after the death of Miloš Stamatović, "who, according to our knowledge, had a usurious debt." He asked why the acting prosecutor "needed so much time" to make an appropriate decision and whether there were elements in the messages found on Stamatović's phone that someone was responding to an incitement to suicide.
Milanović said that he was aware of the case, that the prosecutor was taking action, that information was being collected from certain individuals, and that expert and additional expert reports had been conducted.
"The prosecutor informed me that he will make a decision in that case relatively soon," he said.
The feuilleton mentions specific names and surnames or only surnames, so Komnenić asked Jovanović how she determined who would receive what treatment in the text on that issue.
"I consulted with the editors. It was confirmed from several sources which criminal groups and which of their associates are in this business. Apart from those who are already indicted, some have already been convicted of other crimes, you have seen that almost entire criminal groups are involved in this or their associates. Then we decided that when it is said that a criminal group or its prominent members, based on how much they are already in the news, how many indictments there are against them, we decided not to hide you at all, because they are already practically public figures. It was crazy to hide someone for whom several sources say that he has been recognized for decades as one of the key moneylenders in Montenegro, he is one of the heads of the Kavač clan, if I had only put Kašćelan everyone would know who he was. Then, since it is often a family business, we had a series of brothers of this or that... There are few tribes that do not have representatives in this disgusting, vulture business. Then people started to react, everyone whose last name is that, so we decided to put the first initial. On "In the end, some reacted, whether it was them or not, let the citizens judge, but none of them referred to the Media Law, but I understand that it was extremely important for some who recognized themselves to say that it was not them," she explained.
Jovanović emphasized that not everyone was mentioned, nor was it the end of the feuilleton.
"The others will get a space when I continue. Not because I don't have any material, but because this has been exhausting and I need a break. Every day since the beginning of January, I've had conversations for at least eight hours, and then writing...", she revealed.
DON'T MISS IT
"This feuilleton has been going on for thirty days and there has been no institutional reaction, except for a statement from the police. They are thus sending an additional message that this is allowed and discouraging the victims," the lawyer assessed.
"Only the competent prosecutor's office can make a decision on each criminal report. The police have an obligation to submit a criminal report to the prosecutor's office as soon as they receive it. If this report has not reached the prosecutor's office, that is a serious omission," said Radulović.
Jovanović showed the criminal report filed by Ražnatović
"Before the text was published, on January 27th, I sent questions to the Police Directorate. Today is February 26th, and I have no answer to those questions: what stage the case is in, who was in charge, what specific actions were taken based on that report, did they collect evidence, did they question anyone...", she said.
"There must be a trace between the police and the prosecutor's office where my criminal report is. It is impossible not to know where it ended up... Today, I am less interested in Šćepanović, but in who hid my criminal report, because of which I lost six million euros of property," Ražnatović emphasized at the end of his confession.
See more:
Download the app and follow the news
FOLLOW US ON
