A fight against corruption or a case of defamation?

It has been four years since Zrenjanin's Public District Prosecution accused three judges of corruption, yet the question of whether they truly accepted money from controversial Zrenjanin businessman Andjelko Bitevic remains unanswered.

Although it seemed in the spring of 2004 that the state had launched a serious offensive against corruption in the Serbian judiciary, there is still no proof that Nis judge Stojadin Jovanovic, and Zrenjanin judges Ljubica Popovic and Istvan Ripson received gifts which were to ensure their favor and aid to Bitevic, who at the time was involved in numerous court proceedings.

From mid March to mid May 2004, the Zrenjanin branch of the Security and Information Agency filed criminal charges against the three judges on suspicion that they were bribed by Bitevic, the well-known Zrenjanin entrepreneur. Soon after, the Public District Prosecution announced that a comprehensive investigation would be launched given that serious incriminating evidence existed against the judges, such as telephone conversations taped by the Agency's employees.

Four years later, the proceedings against judge Popovic have been halted, the transcripts of the tapped phone conversations have been excluded from the evidence in the judge Jovanovic case, and the trial of judge Ripson still remains open.

Andjelko Bitevic, the owner of the Zrenjanin-based company Victory, was arrested by members of the Security and Information Agency on March 16, 2004, under suspicion of having bribed judge Jovanovic. The Agency brought in the judge for questioning the same day, and then filed charges against him for allegedly accepting an apartment in the Montenegrin seaside town of Budva worth EUR36,800 from Bitevic, in exchange for a non-guilty ruling in a famous rakija (brandy) poisoning scandal. The case saw judge Jovanovic acquit Bitevic, who stood trial for selling methyl alcohol to Nis businessman Miroslav Zoza Zivadinovic. Zivadinovic used the substance instead of its safe counterpart, ethanol, to produce the popular alcoholic beverage rakija, which led to the poisoning of 56, and subsequent deaths of 43 people in 1998.

The indictment against Bitevic was twice expanded on suspicion of him withholding taxes, while his accountant Marija Bodvai was at the same time accused of evading taxes by founding fake companies through which they conducted important business operations.

Trade Court judge Ljubica Popovic was brought in for questioning by the Security and Information Agency on May 25, 2004, on suspicion that she accepted EUR5,000 from Bitevic to provide him with information and legal advice in court proceedings involving Victory and in which she was the presiding judge. Later, the indictment against her specified that she "assured Bitevic she would influence other judges to rule in his favor, speed up several lawsuits before the Trade Court, and promised to, as a member of the bankruptcy proceedings committee, move for a sales price reduction of the company Lipar from Srpska Crnja, which Bitevic was interested in buying." The case was forwarded to the Novi Sad District Court, and the Novi Sad prosecutor's office on May 19, 2007 dropped the charges because "there was no proof she [Bodvai] did anything from which Bitevic gained benefit."

Only a day after judge Popovic was questioned, on May 26, 2004, the Security and Information Agency brought in Municipal Court judge Istvan Ripson, who was allegedly bribed by Bitevic to provide aid in legal proceedings before the Municipal Court. The indictment which followed claimed that the judge received 270,000 dinars worth of goods, which the financial police discovered while inspecting a store owned by his wife, Marija Ripson. The Ripson case has been handed over to the Pancevo District Court and has still not been concluded.

Transcripts Void as Evidence

Right after the trial of judge Jovanovic and Bitevic commenced on Jan. 24, 2005, trial chamber head Peter Kis decided to exclude transcripts of tapped telephone conversations between the defendants from the evidence, because the case documentation contained no mention of a signed surveillance agreement between the Interior Ministry and the Security and Information Agency. The decision came after Jovanovic's lawyer Sava Andjelkovic recommended the exclusion on grounds that the transcripts were acquired "through the abuse of office on part of members of the Security and Information Agency, because the Agency received surveillance approval [only] from the investigating judge, although it is a special legal entity whose sphere of operation is strictly defined and which can perform such duties only in particular situations when so ordered by the Supreme Court."

According to the Criminal Proceedings Act in effect at the time, the Supreme Court head or an authorized judge could order the Interior Ministry to monitor an individual, while the Security and Information Agency, which in the meantime grew from being part of the State Security Service into a separate legal body, was left out of the amended law and could, therefore, assume certain duties from the Interior Ministry only on prior agreement. Despite Zrenjanin Prosecutor Dragan Lazic's appeal to the Supreme Court, in which he claimed that such an agreement did in fact exist and was in keeping with the Security and Information Agency Act, the appeal was overruled and the transcripts were permanently voided as evidence.

Prosecutor Dragan Lazic claimed that he trusted the Agency and let it work on all three cases because it proved to be very responsible. "As far as the Jovanovic case goes, I suggested to judge Goran Zec to give the Agency the order, because at the time only they could tap [phone] conversations. The Agency dealt with all three cases very professionally, systematically, [and] thoroughly, and our collaboration with them was very positive. Working on such matters with them is a perfect choice," said Lazic, stressing that everything the Agency did was based on a signed agreement with the Interior Ministry.

Attorney Sava Andjelkovic, on the other hand, maintains that the case he represents involved a political showdown, which primarily targeted Bitevic. "Judge Jovanovic ended up being collateral damage, which is confirmed by the fact that judge Zec heavily abused his office and gave permission to tap [Bitevic and Jovanovic's] conversations contrary to the provisions of the Criminal Proceedings Act, which was later confirmed by the Supreme Court's decision to exclude the transcripts from the evidence. My client may be the greatest of swindlers, but he did not commit the crime he is accused of. I've listened to the tape and can say it has nothing to do with the evidence, but I nevertheless wanted to prove that it was unacceptable, which has definitely been confirmed by the Supreme Court's ruling," said Jovanovic's attorney.

Judge Kis explained that he did not exclude the transcripts because he thought they were useless as evidence, but for practical reasons, because the means by which they were acquired were questionable. "Had the police made them, there would have been no problem. The only way for me to find out whether the law was breached was to ask the Supreme Court. I was professionally satisfied that the prosecutor's request for the protection of legality was denied, but that does not mean the decision reflects my overall attitude towards telephone tapping," the judge claims.

Judge with Seaside View

Judge Kis believes that the exclusion of the transcripts has made proving Jovanovic's guilt quite difficult. "Aside from the defendants' statements, we have very little direct evidence and [few] witnesses confirming what the indictment claims. It makes little sense for a judge to lend the accused money and to accept an apartment as payment, but that means nothing. The [case] documentation contains no proof that [the defendants] were in contact or in any way spoke prior to the closing of the [rakija poisoning] case, which would have been relevant," said judge Kis, adding that, in any case, he would not like to draw any conclusions before the verdict was reached.

Sava Andjelkovic does not deny that a private arrangement was made between judge Jovanovic and Bitevic a year after the acquittal in the Nis court. "There's a motive for everything in life, as would be the case here had someone abused their office to accept a bribe. Since they were acquainted from a previous trial, they began talking of current affairs as well, and a few months later Jovanovic lent Bitevic money on two occasions. Since [Bitevic] could not pay him back, Jovanovic let a stupid life situation put him into a stupid professional situation. It just happened so and there was no corruption in that, because Bitevic is not a stupid man and had no reason to bribe Jovanovic," says Andjelkovic.

After he was questioned by the Security and Information Agency in 2004, Jovanovic said he had no clue what was going on until he met with the investigating judge. At the time, he had claimed that he had received nothing from Bitevic, that he had not even know him prior to the trial, that he had performed his job conscientiously in the rakija poisoning case, and that his long-lasting career was impeccable. He did, however, concede to owning an apartment in Budva, but maintained he had received it not from Bitevic, but "as compensation for a debt from a certain person", whom he did not wish to name.

As BETA learned at the prosecution, the flat was signed over to Jovanovic in Feb. 2004, after Bitevic paid out its previous owner, a Belgrade developer. Bitevic had arranged to pay for the apartment in building material and, when the deal was finished through several mediating construction companies, the Budva flat was put in Jovanovic's name. When the Security and Information Agency searched the apartment and other quarters used by Jovanovic, it discovered a contract according to which he bought the apartment for EUR25,000. After investigating several other addresses, police also discovered real invoices for the sale of construction materials.

This corroborates what Prosecutor Lazic told BETA immediately following the launching of the indictment. "Bitevic promised Jovanovic gifts on several occasions in their conversations, in exchange for the latter ruling in his favor in the case in question, and for giving him legal advice on how to defend himself when the proceedings were repeated. This is why Bitevic gave [Jovanovic] a 45 square meter apartment in Budva," Lazic said.

Upon appeals by both the prosecution and defense, the Supreme Court annulled judge Jovanovic's ruling in the rakija poisoning case, and a new trial began in November 2003, also at the Nis District Court, this time lead by judge Milan Nikolic. The retrial saw Bitevic sentenced to six years in prison, which he will, according to judge Kis, begin serving as soon as his detention in Belgrade ends.

Bitevic: A Fortune Through Hard Work

Bitevic claims that he had been building his substantial estate since youth and that he had never been a member of any political party because none interested him. "My family and I worked 24 hours straight and painstakingly earned every penny. All I have today are debts and a thousand burdens on my shoulders, because I was robbed of everything. First it was Slobodan Milosevic's regime which stole and destroyed [my property], then came the [Democratic Opposition of Serbia], which did the same, and now these people are at it again. I've been in prison three times and have always been released, and I survive only because I have friends who help me," Bitevic maintains.

So far, Bitevic has spent several hundred days in police custody. He was last arrested along with two other persons by Belgrade police on Jan. 17 of this year, on suspicion of using his position as owner of the Fresh Milk company in Zrenjanin to cause Hypo Alpe Adria Leasing to lose over $12 million. He was sentenced by the Supreme Court to nine months in prison for bribing a Belgrade municipal official to allow him to import a certain amount of methyl alcohol. Bitevic went to serve this term in 2004, straight from Zrenjanin's lockup, where he spent several months over the Jovanovic case.

Yet most intriguing is the marathon trial led before Zrenjanin's Municipal and District courts for ten years straight, where Bitevic stood accused of tax evasion and forging documents. After the Zrenjanin Police Department in 1994 filed charges against Bitevic for allegedly withholding some 650,000 dinars of tax money (back then an equivalent of about EUR325,000), several court proceedings were led before the Municipal Court, but the District Court voided the verdict each time, ordering a retrial. In mid 2003 the indictment was rejected due to the statute of limitations running out.

That same year, the Tax Directorate and financial police filed charges against Bitevic for misappropriation of goods. The Municipal Court acquitted him three times, and the District Court twice ordered a retrial, eventually sustaining the third non-guilty verdict. The state public prosecutor then motioned for the protection of legality, after which the Supreme Court found that the verdict had violated the Law on the Control and Determination of Public Revenue and the Criminal Proceedings Act to Bitevic's benefit. Bitevic's biography includes several similar examples.

Are Judges Immune to Guilt?

Prosecutor Dragan Lazic claims that it is telling that the prosecution successfully concluded all bribery cases before the Zrenjanin courts, while cases involving judges still remain open. He also says that it is interesting that a different decision was made in each of the three cases. The judge Jovanovic case is still open but the transcripts have been excluded from evidence. The Novi Sad prosecution has halted charges against judge Popovic, but transcripts had previously been excluded as evidence over the same legal concerns as in the Jovanovic case, while judge Ripson is still being tried, and the transcripts have not been excluded despite demands made by his attorney.

Judge Peter Kis claims nothing the defense does surprises him anymore, adding that, in some way, he expected that the exclusion of the transcripts would be requested. At the same time defense lawyer Sava Andjelkovic has nothing but praise for judge Kis. "This trial has proven that there are few judges as dignified, conscientious, responsible and honorable as judge Peter Kis. It is a tragedy there are not more like him because the investigation was poorly conducted, which led to the main hearing being turned into an investigation," says Andjelkovic. Prosecutor Lazic was unable to comment on the most recent events because he was arrested at the end of February 2008 on suspicion of abusing office on several occasions from Dec. 2004 to Dec. 2007, in order to protect the owner of a brick factory. According to the indictment, the factory owner gave Lazic 40 truckloads of construction materials, worth EUR37,000, which Lazic then sold to a well-known developer from Novi Sad.

In the meantime, the main hearing in the Bitevic/Jovanovic case was for the nineteenth time postponed on March 31 of this year. According to Judge Kis, the trial, which commenced on Jan 24, 2005, has been prolonged because Bitevic is currently in police custody, because the indictment involves several criminal charges, and because the proceedings involved Bitevic's accountant as well. "That's why the proceedings have been dragging on for so long, while the part regarding judge Jovanovic's has been ripe for a verdict for a long time now. All witnesses have been heard, all evidence presented, all that remains is for the forensic specialist to be questioned so that case is coming to an end," Kis expects.

As far as Bitevic is concerned, Judge Kis said that the Belgrade District Court has in the meantime launched an indictment against him and extended his detention. "Aside from that, he is also to be sent to serve his prison term for the rakija poisoning case, which means that once he is released from detention, Bitevic will be sent to prison, as all the necessary paperwork has already been prepared," Kis says.

Whatever verdict is pronounced in Zrenjanin's hall of justice, Bitevic is likely to spend a long time behind bars. What is certain is that judge Ljubica Popovic will never be called on to answer the charges against her, while judges Istvan Ripson and Stojadin Jovanovic will still have to wait a bit for their first degree verdicts. The transcripts of the conversations between Bitevic and the judges, upon which all three indictments were based, no longer exist or remain problematic. And considering that both attorney Andjelkovic and the Novi Sad assistant prosecutor claim they contain nothing which implied any sort of crime, a sole conclusion imposes itself: it would be best for the judges to remove all doubt and defend their reputation and honor by allowing the tapped conversation transcripts to be made public.