{"id":19850,"date":"2017-06-19T10:00:00","date_gmt":"2017-06-19T08:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/127.0.0.1\/investigation-against-bogoljub-karic-11-years-of-waiting-for-witnesses-documents-and-translations\/"},"modified":"2019-08-22T14:30:23","modified_gmt":"2019-08-22T12:30:23","slug":"investigation-against-bogoljub-karic-11-years-of-waiting-for-witnesses-documents-and-translations","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.cins.rs\/en\/investigation-against-bogoljub-karic-11-years-of-waiting-for-witnesses-documents-and-translations\/","title":{"rendered":"Investigation against Bogoljub Kari\u0107: 11 years of waiting for witnesses, documents, and translations"},"content":{"rendered":"

\n\tWhen the Prosecutor\u2019s Office for Organized Crime filed the press release on suspension of the investigation against Bogoljub Kari\u0107<\/strong> at about 7 o\u2019clock in the evening on 27 December 2016, this shortly became the lead story. Almost 11 years earlier, Kari\u0107 had also made the leading news when he departed Serbia and went to Russia, having had two investigations launched against him.
\n\t
\n\tThe first investigation against Kari\u0107 was launched in January 2006 by the then District Public Prosecutor\u2019s Office in Belgrade (now the Higher Public Prosecutor\u2019s Office) for the alleged withdrawal of money from Mobtel company. In this case, the indictment was pressed later, but the part of the procedure relating to Kari\u0107 was suspended in January 2016 due to statute of limitation.
\n\t
\n\tKari\u0107 was declared to be on the wanted list on 4 February 2006, while two weeks later the District Prosecutor\u2019s office launched another investigation against him.<\/p>\n

\n\t\u00a0<\/p>\n

\n\t

\n\t\tBetween 2007 and 2015 there was not a single hearing<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n\tIn its request to carry out the investigation, the Prosecutor\u2019s Office stated that Kari\u0107 and other suspects damaged the then Public company PTT Serbia<\/em> by fictitiously increasing the value of assets his company BK Trade<\/em> was supposed to bring in to Mobtel<\/em>. BK Trade<\/em> and PTT Serbia<\/em> had established Mobtel in 1994 with the aim of introducing mobile telephony into Serbia.
\n\t
\n\tCenter for Investigative Journalism of Serbia<\/em> (CINS) is revealing details from this investigation to show why the investigation lasted for longer than 10 years without the indictment pressed.
\n\t
\n\tAmong other things, not a single document in a foreign language was translated for seven years, while almost every attempt to obtain documents lasted for months or years. Between 2007 and 2015 there was not a single hearing.
\n\t
\n\tIn its press release from December last year, the Prosecutor\u2019s Office stated that the new expert evaluation from 2015, which indicated that BK Trade<\/em> had not obtained any illegal asset-related benefits, was the main reason for suspending the investigation. The document which was subject to the expert evaluation had already been analyzed in 2011.
\n\t
\n\tOn the investigation of business affairs of Mobtel<\/em>, Bogoljub Kari\u0107 said to the CINS journalist:<\/p>\n

\n\t\u00a0<\/p>\n

\n\t

\n\t\tStatute of limitation after 10 years<\/h2>\n\t

\n\t\tThe first investigation against Bogoljub Kari\u0107<\/strong>, which also related to Mobtel<\/em>, was launched by the then District Public Prosecutor\u2019s Office on 17 January 2006. Almost two and a half years later, on 6 May 2008, the investigation was completed. On 27 July 2010, the file was handed for action to the deputy prosecutor, who pressed an indictment in September. The indictment was re-qualified in 2013.
\n\t\t
\n\t\tCriminal prosecution of Bogoljub Kari\u0107 in this case was ended on 28 January 2016, when the court passed a decision on suspension due to statute of limitation. Following this, the case was returned to the Higher Prosecutor\u2019s Office to pass an order on additional investigation in relation to other suspects.
\n\t\t
\n\t\tThe Higher Prosecutor\u2019s Office refused to supply CINS with data and the reply to the questions what was actually going on from the end of the investigation till the pressing of the indictment, how many people were interrogated, and how many expert evaluations were requested, stating that \u201cpassing of this information could jeopardize the further course of the criminal proceedings \u201c. <\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n\t\u201cPolitical actors were stalling the case with the aim that it should never reach the court. If the case reached the court, if the proceedings were launched and if innocence was proved, which would certainly happen (\u2026), this would incur enormous damage to the state. And then, when one set of people stepped out of power, and then the second and third one, what was there to be done? They could only suspend the process, which would become subject to statute of limitation in May anyway\u201c.<\/p>\n

\n\t
\n\tMiroslav \u0110or\u0111evi\u0107<\/strong>, one of Kari\u0107\u2019s defense counsels, says that the investigation should have been suspended back in 2006, as \u201ceven at that time there were no grounds for launching and instituting criminal proceedings\u201c.
\n\t
\n\tWhen CINS journalists asked the Prosecutor\u2019s Office for reasons for such a prolonged investigation, they were told that the investigation is not limited by time, and that this case involved several individuals:
\n\t
\n\t\u201cIt was necessary to obtain various evidence important for the decision, from a number of countries, which is why court and Prosecutor\u2019s Office addressed competent bodies abroad on several occasions, and this significantly slowed the process down\u201d.
\n\t
\n\tKari\u0107\u2019s case is not the only of the kind – CINS reported on several occasions on investigations and court proceedings of cases of corruption and organized crime which took a range of years. In the end of 2016, in Serbian courts there were 533 criminal cases which had lasted for more than 10 years.<\/p>\n

\n\t
\n\tEight years without a hearing<\/h2>\n

\n\t
\n\tIn 2005, the Anti-Corruption Council<\/em> submitted a report to the Serbian Government in which it stated that \u201cMobtel Company<\/em> was founded in serious breach of law\u201d and that it \u201cconducted business operations in privileged conditions due to close connections with the regime\u201d. The case was later included in the so-called \u201c24 privatizations\u201d, the resolution of which was requested from Serbia by the European Union.
\n\t
\n\tFollowing Kari\u0107\u2019s departure from Serbia in the beginning of 2006, the authorities took over majority ownership in Mobtel<\/em>, changed its name, and later sold it to Norwegian Telenor<\/em>.
\n\t
\n\tExcept for fictitious enlargement of value of the equipment brought in on establishment of Mobtel<\/em>, members of the Kari\u0107 family were also suspected of transferring assets originating from Mobtel to private accounts though a private company; according to prosecutors, this earned Kari\u0107 the illegal profit at the amount of then 757.5 million dinars.<\/p>\n

\n\t\u00a0<\/p>\n

\n\t\"\"<\/a>\n\t

\n\t\tProsecutor\u2019s Office for Organized Crime<\/h3>\n\t

\n\t\tPhoto: CINS<\/h4>\n<\/div>\n

\n\tIn February 2006, the Prosecutor\u2019s Office also launched an investigation against two Mobtel<\/em> employees and two BK Trade<\/em> employees; the investigation was later extended to include Kari\u0107\u2019s sister and his three brothers. They were first investigated under suspicion of abuse of office, but in March 2014 the criminal act was re-qualified as abuse of office of the person in charge.
\n\t
\n\tIn June 2006, the case was transferred to the newly-established Special Prosecutor\u2019s Office, presently Prosecutor\u2019s Office for Organized Crime.
\n\t
\n\tBetween March 2006 and March 2007, 17 persons were interrogated. Until April 2015, there were no more hearings. In December 2014, the Prosecutor\u2019s Office requested defense counsels to present their evidence, but rejected their proposals in February 2015; following an appeal, they were finally accepted in March by the Higher Court.
\n\t
\n\tFrom April to October 2015, as many as 24 individuals were interrogated, including ministers in different sets of Serbian Government, Velimir Ili\u0107<\/strong> and Branislav Ivkovi\u0107<\/strong>, as well as Nikola \u0160ainovi\u0107,<\/strong> former Prime Minister of Serbia. Defense counsels waived 16 other witnesses, including Jorgovanka Tabakovi\u0107<\/strong>, Boris Tadi\u0107<\/strong>, and Zoran \u017divkovi\u0107<\/strong>.<\/p>\n

\n\t
\n\tAs a part of the investigation related to the purchase of disputable equipment from Swedish company Ericsson<\/em>, in February 2014 competent bodies requested interrogation of Mats Arnam<\/strong>, Peter Olsson<\/strong>, and Joakim Cerwall<\/strong> in Sweden. However, a year and a half later, Swedish Prosecution replied that \u201cwitness Mats Arnam is not an employee with Ericsson\u201d and that \u201cthere are several employees at Ericsson bearing the name Peter Olsson, so it is not possible to identify which one is the witness\u201d. Joakim Cerwall was interrogated.
\n\t
\n\tThe reply from the Prosecutor\u2019s office to CINS also stated that interrogation of 20 more witnesses \u201cwas not possible to conduct because they are not known at the addresses provided by the defense\u201d.<\/p>\n

\n\t
\n\tLost in translation<\/h2>\n

\n\t\u00a0<\/p>\n

\n\t

\n\t\tIn the end of 2016, in Serbian courts there were 533 criminal cases which had lasted for more than 10 years. <\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n\tIn most cases, obtaining of documents in this investigation lasted for months or years. Thus, for instance, in May 2007, Mobtel<\/em> was ordered to file documents in relation to the founder\u2019s share of BK Trade <\/em>in Mobtel<\/em>, as well as invoices and other documents relating to telecommunication equipment. The documents were not filed before three years later.
\n\t
\n\tThe order on dispossession of documents from Kari\u0107\u2018s Astra banka<\/em> was passed in February 2008. A part of documents was sent in March 2008, while the other part was submitted in May 2010 with a note that some documents were destroyed in fire in bank premises \u2013 five years before.
\n\t
\n\tDocuments from Russia and Cyprus were also expected for a long time.<\/p>\n

\n\t\u00a0<\/p>\n

\n\t

\n\t\tPolitical career<\/h2>\n\t\"Political<\/a>\n\t

\n\t\tThe Kari\u0107 family entered politics in 2004, when Boguljub Kari\u0107<\/strong> was a presidential candidate before a group of citizens, while later in the same year he founded a political party, which is nowadays called Pokret SNAGA SRBIJE – BK<\/em>. At the parliamentary elections in 2007 and 2008, the party acted independently, while Bogoljub Kari\u0107\u2019s wife Milanka<\/strong> was a presidential candidate in 2008.
\n\t\t
\n\t\tKari\u0107\u2019s brother Dragomir <\/strong>and wife Milanka have been members of Serbian Parliament since 2012, within Pokret SNAGA SRBIJE<\/em>, which is a part of the coalition around Serbian Progressive Party<\/em>. At the last presidential elections, the party supported the candidacy of Aleksandar Vu\u010di\u0107<\/strong>, while Kari\u0107 became actively involved in Vu\u010di\u0107\u2019s campaign upon his return to Serbia in the beginning of 2017.<\/p>\n\t

\n\t\tPhoto: Beta<\/h3>\n<\/div>\n

\n\tThe first letter rogatory, which related to companies Sistem Bra\u0107a Kari\u0107 BK Trade<\/em>, AKA banka<\/em>, and BK Trade<\/em>, was filed to Russia in the end of 2006. In the meantime, Russia requested that the letter rogatory be complemented, so the new one was filed in September of the following year. The reply from Russia was received in July 2008, stating that BK Trade <\/em>and AKA banka<\/em> \u201care not recorded in tax records of the Federal tax service\u201c.
\n\t
\n\tIn December 2008, Serbia filed Russia an urgent request \u201cto act in entirety after the letter rogatory\u201d, and two days later documents relating to the ownership structure of AKA Banka <\/em>arrived from Russia. Additional documents on the bank were filed in July and August 2009.
\n\t
\n\tWhen it comes to Cyprus-based companies, the reply from the Prosecutor\u2019s Office to CINS stated that documents from this country were requested twice: in November 2006 and in July 2010 and that the reply was received in May 2011.
\n\t
\n\tIn April 2013, the Prosecution passed the order to complement the investigation which, among other things, also requested \u201cto translate, from Swedish, the reply of Swedish judicial authorities (…) from 10 November 2006 \u201c, then \u201cto translate, from English, evidence relating to the ownership structure of company ‘Yucyco’ Ltd Cyprus\u201c, and 68 foreign invoices for imported equipment.
\n\t
\n\tWhen CINS asked how it happened that these documents were never translated, the Prosecutor\u2019s Office replied, in writing:
\n\t
\n\t\u201cThe court never translated a single document in any foreign language since the launching of the case, which is why the Prosecutor\u2019s Office, on 24 April 2013, passed an order to translate various evidence relating to company \u2019Yucyco\u2019 Ltd<\/em>\u201c.
\n\t
\n\tUntil January 2012, the court, that is, investigative judges, was in charge of investigations in competence of the Prosecutor\u2019s Office for Organized Crime. The Higher Court in Belgrade stated to CINS that they could not provide an answer to the question of why documents were not translated for such a long time, as the acting judge from the case is no longer employed with the same court.
\n\t
\n\tBy the same order issued by the Prosecution in 2013, reports from criminal records were requested for Kari\u0107 and four more suspects, presenting, according to the acting deputy prosecutor, \u201celements which any indictment would have to include \u201c.<\/p>\n

\n\t
\n\tExpert evaluation of the already evaluated<\/h2>\n

\n\t\u00a0<\/p>\n

\n\t

\n\t\tDinki\u0107: It is not my world anymore<\/h2>\n\t

\n\t\tIn the 1990s, Bogoljub Kari\u0107<\/strong> was one of the most powerful people in Serbia. Except for a part of Mobtel, he and his family owned a large number of companies, including BK TV<\/em>, BK University<\/em>, and Astra Banka<\/em>, which was revoked its license to operate in October 2001 by the National Bank of Yugoslavia.
\n\t\t
\n\t\tIn the press release of the then National Bank Governor Mla\u0111an Dinki\u0107<\/strong> it is stated that, for the monetary part of the stock capital, it was established that, \u201cinstead of the stipulated $5 million, it has a negative value and that there is a drawback of more than $35 million\u201d. The press release also read that \u201cthe bank has still not fulfilled seven out of the total of ten prescribed indicators of business operations.\u201d<\/p>\n\t

\n\t\t
\n\t\tThe bank does not operate anymore and is in liquidation.
\n\t\t
\n\t\tIt was Dinki\u0107, who was later Minister of finance and economy in several sets of Serbian Government, who was frequently speaking critically of Bogoljub Kari\u0107; still, he refused to comment the suspension of the investigation in the Mobtel<\/em> case, saying that he ceased giving public statements three years ago. \u201cIt is not my world anymore\u201d, he said.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n\tIn its press release on suspension of the investigation issued in the end of 2016, the Prosecutor\u2019s Office for Organized Crime stated that in 2015 it rejected the new evidence proposed by defense counsels as well as new expert evaluation, but that the proposal was approved by the court following an appeal. In the end of 2015, the Prosecution was ordered \u201cto perform an additional expert economic and financial evaluation to take into account new circumstances as stated in the report on Alfa Profit doo<\/em> from Moscow, which was filed meanwhile by defense \u2026\u201d
\n\t
\n\tThe report mentioned is the report of the Russian company Alfa-profit <\/em>on the amount of costs of Kari\u0107\u2019s company on entering equipment into Mobtel<\/em>. Although this report was already analyzed in 2011, in the end of 2015 the Prosecution ordered additional expert evaluation, after it was requested by the defense and approved by the Higher Court in Belgrade.
\n\t
\n\tOn both occasions, expert evaluation was performed by the City Institute for Expertise of Belgrade with the task to determine the costs of company BK Trade<\/em> for delivery of the equipment brought into Mobtel<\/em>.
\n\t
\n\tIn its press release, the Prosecution stated that in the case of the first expert evaluation it was established that the costs of purchase and deliver of the equipment for Mobtel were justified, \u201cwhich resulted in the conclusion that no illegal profit was obtained\u201d.
\n\t
\n\tIn its reply to CINS, the Prosecution stated that on the first expert evaluation, the report \u201cwas not included in the court order, but was supplied by the defense in the course of the expertise.\u201d
\n\t
\n\tWhen asked about expert evaluations and other details of the proceedings, Bogoljub Kari\u0107\u2019s lawyers – Miroslav \u0110or\u0111evi\u0107<\/strong> and Milorad Panjevi\u0107<\/strong> \u2013 did not reply to CINS, stating that they are bound to keep business secrets.<\/p>\n

\n\t\u00a0<\/p>\n

\n

\n\tThe story has been produced under an EU funded grant, awarded in the Media Programme 2014. The contents of this publication are the sole responsibility of the Center for Investigative Journalism of Serbia and can in no way be taken to reflect the views of the EU.<\/em><\/p>\n

\n\t
\n\t<\/em>\"\"  \"\"<\/em><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

The investigation initiated in February 2006, marked by slow pace and lack of efficiency of judicial institutions in obtaining of evidence, was suspended in the end of 2016 without an indictment. Kari\u0107 says that, due to political reasons, the case was never aimed at reaching the court<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1130,"featured_media":17757,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[1492,1595],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-19850","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-investigative-stories","category-justice","ciTrackContent"],"acf":[],"featured_image_url":"https:\/\/www.cins.rs\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/06\/1497807289~~BETAPHOTO_MILAN-OBRADOVIC-copy.jpg","author_additional":null,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.cins.rs\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/19850","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.cins.rs\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.cins.rs\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.cins.rs\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1130"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.cins.rs\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=19850"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.cins.rs\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/19850\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.cins.rs\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/17757"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.cins.rs\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=19850"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.cins.rs\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=19850"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.cins.rs\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=19850"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}