We know how the money in the “Racket” case was provided

Frosina Fakova-Serafinovic

No one who committed a crime will be spared, said the Chief State Public Prosecutor, Ljubomir Joveski in an interview with Nezavisen Vesnik/Independent Daily. He reveals some details of the investigation into the latest “Racket’ case, the accounts of the businessman witness and the extension of the investigation. Except for the investigation, Joveski talks about how the status of the Special Public Prosecutor’s Office should be resolved and proposes the same that was proposed by Prime Minister Zoran Zaev in the new draft law on public prosecution, which will be discussed in Parliament next week. He assures the public that all perpetrators will be prosecuted if the cases of the SPO are transferred to the Public Prosecutor’s Office.

After the opening of a new investigation for the case of racketeering by the owner of the 1TV station, the public’s main question is whether the investigation will be extended. Will it include MPs and prosecutors, or maybe some other people?

Yes, the investigation will be extended to all involved persons in this specific case, as well as to other crimes if such evidence is found. At this point, it cannot be said whether MPs, prosecutors or other figures will be included in the investigation. We act impartially, and we will investigate this crime and bring to light fully and comprehensively. No one who has committed a crime will be spared.

According PPO information, the witness paid the main suspect EUR 1.5 million to terminate the investigative procedure against him. It’s a huge amount of money. Was the money paid in cash, and will the prosecution investigate the accounts out of which the money was taken out, and how it was acquired?

The money was paid in cash on two occasions. During the pre-trial procedure, the Prosecutor’s Office determined the manner and the accounts from which the money was provided. In order not to compromise the procedure I will not reveal any other details. But as soon as we have the right conditions, the public will be informed of the ways this crime was committed in the specific case.

There is one important dilemma among the citizens: the witness paid 1.5 million euros for the termination of the proceedings against him, thereby violating the law. How can he not be part of the accused for this big scandal, because it is clear that his intention was to bribe prosecutors with that money?

In the investigation, the Prosecutor’s Office will investigate whether the goal was to bribe prosecutors or merely exploit the main suspect’s influence on a public prosecutor. The person you are asking is the one who filed the criminal charge and is a witness in this case. Circumstances that are taken into account in accordance with the law relate only to this case. The person may also take part in another capacity for other crimes in other proceedings, depending on the involvement and participation he or she has had in the criminal-legal events.

In order to stimulate the discovery of these crimes, the legislator foresaw the facilitation of the person who would report the criminal offense, but, I repeat, only for that particular criminal-legal event. This criminal case does not affect the accountability of the witness in the “Empire” case, which is run by the SPO.

The witness is suspected in one of the cases of the Special Public Prosecutor’s Office “Empire”. The investigation into this offense has been initiated after the SPO deadline, is the regular prosecution prepared to undertake the investigation of this case, and what will happen with the case?

The Public Prosecutor’s Office, despite the fact that it is not fully equipped and does not have sufficient financial resources for work, has repeatedly pointed out that it has professional capacities, and we are ready to fight crime.

The “Empire” case has been formed in the SPO and as long as this prosecution has jurisdiction over it, we cannot take it. In order to act on this specific, as well as other cases of the SPO, special prosecutors need to make a decision that they are not in charge of these cases and officially hand them over to us, or this situation to be solved as it is most appropriate in the law that is in an ongoing procedure.
I assure you that if these cases are transferred under the jurisdiction of the Public Prosecutor’s Office, all perpetrators in all cases, where the prosecution will establish criminal offense, will be prosecuted.

The parties are negotiating, but they cannot reach a deal on the status of the Special Public Prosecutor’s Office. What is your opinion – should this prosecutor’s office survive without its chief Prosecutor Katica Janeva and how should this prosecutor’s office continue its work?

Institutions need to be built so that their work is not dependent on individuals and changes in managerial functions. The principles of action are foreseen in the law and they should not be changed according to the change of chiefs. The status of the SPO should be resolved as soon as possible. I consider that this prosecutor’s office has proved that work conditions, good equipment, sufficient number of human resources, and use of investigators are necessary for doing the public prosecution’s job.

My opinion is that the Special Public Prosecutor’s Office should become an integral part of the Public Prosecutor’s Office and integrate the new competence in the part of high corruption with the Prosecutor’s Office against organized crime and corruption, preserving its resources and autonomy in the cases for which it was founded.

You sent a request to the Parliament for authentic interpretation of Article 22 of the Law on Special Public Prosecutor’s Office and awaiting an opinion from the Government. The request was sent back in February. Do you have any information about this procedure? Have you contacted the Government and Parliament to speed up this process?

We are still expecting the Parliament to make a decision on our request, precisely because of the reasons that I have already mentioned, or adopt the new Law on the Public Prosecutor’s Office. Time is running out, if no solution to the organizational setup of the SPO is found in less than two months, other more important issues will emerge. I hope that the legislature will make an appropriate decision in the interest of the legality in the handling and the fight against crime.

The former prime minister’s escape was a blow to the entire security and justice system. The investigation into how Gruevski fled the country could recover part of that lost trust. Can you tell us how is the investigation of Gruevski’s escape going, and who helped him?

The Prosecutor’s Office collected a great deal of material and verbal evidence. Unfortunately, we could not reach some of the evidence due to the response from the competent authorities in Albania. The case is still ongoing, but to this moment there is no concrete evidence on the manner of escape of the convicted former PM Gruevski, nor who helped him escape. The procedure is conducted to determine the possible criminal liability of certain persons involved in the escape. The oversights in the work of the institutions are not within the competence of the Public Prosecutor’s Office, and each institution should determine them and take actions for their removal.

Have you received any new information why Inteprol is still not issuing an arrest warrant for Gruevski’s involvement in the April 27 case? Are there any oversights in the preparation of this arrest warrant, and does Interpol in some way think that Gruevski had escaped and received asylum due to political reasons?

There is no official answer, although the Public Prosecutor’s Office against organized crime and corruption demanded answers. We have taken all necessary actions in accordance with the international procedure and that is the extent of our competencies.

The public has the impression that you and Prosecutor Vilma Ruskoska act as a team. Do you coordinate your investigations and how effective and thorough can the Prosecutor’s Office against Organized Crime be in these investigations, considering the very few prosecutors it has?

The organizational setup of the Public Prosecutor’s Offices in the country, with the exception of the SPO due to the legal solutions, requires cooperation and coordination. The public prosecutors are independent when it comes to decision-making in their procedures. But the entire public prosecutor’s organization invests its experience and knowledge in giving support and mutually coordinated work. Our goal is mutual – to successfully fight crime and to persecute perpetrators of crimes. Such position allows us to carry out investigations even in situations such as this one.

Not only in the Public Prosecutor’s Office against Organized Crime and Corruption, but in all prosecutor’s offices the situation with resources is alarming and worrying. This prosecutor’s office, like the rest of the prosecutor’s offices, has been working for a long time with an insufficient number of public prosecutors and insufficiently professional administrative workers.

The problem is not solely with the Prosecutor’s Office against Organized Crime: the institution you manage lacks many prosecutors for it to work effectively. What are you doing to improve this condition?

The Public Prosecutor’s Office has long been working with an insufficient number of public prosecutors and administration. There are also public prosecutor’s offices that have no public prosecutors. For instance, the prosecutor’s office in Kriva Palanka. In Kriva Palanka, after a decision is made, it is transferred to the public prosecutors in the Kumanovo Prosecutor’s Office. Colleagues are making extraordinary efforts in order not to reflect these conditions on the quality and the duration of the criminal proceedings.

251 public prosecutors are necessary for the functioning of the prosecutor’s offices, and currently only 176 prosecutors are in office.

Regarding the administration, the Rulebook on systematization of the Public Prosecutor’s Office of the Republic of North Macedonia foresees a total of 1,126 employees. At present, only 356 job positions, that is, employees, are filled in public prosecutor’s offices, which is 770 persons less than planned. These numbers do not include the needs of future investigative centers, which will require additional staff.

Other major problems are insufficient equipment, lack of basic working conditions, official vehicles, means for paying the due liabilities of the public prosecutor’s offices to other institutions for translations, expert reports, autopsies, etc.

We have made several steps to address the situation. One of the proposals was the creation of a legal framework in which the possibility of appointing public prosecutors would be given to the current expert associates who have after decades of internship in the public prosecutor’s offices, the courts, the defense and are fully informed in the work, so that they can join the Academy for training. Unfortunately, such a legal decision has not yet been made.

A procedure for admitting new candidates for public prosecutors is currently underway. We can count on the new public prosecutors two or three years from now, considering the duration of the training at the Academy.

I believe that the reforms in the judiciary will not end only with the legal changes, and by the end of the year it is necessary for the competent institutions to provide funds to professional and administrative staff. I cannot help but emphasize the fact that, via the IPA program, the working premises of 11 prosecutors are being completely renovated and two of them will continue to work in completely new premises.

 Judges cannot turn black into white

The principle of free evaluation of evidence is sometimes used as an absolute power to distance from the law

Your statement on the judge who made the verdict on the case for the illegal building against journalist Dragan Pavlovic-Latas provoked rage at the Criminal Court. Do you remain in your position concerning the judge’s accountability?

The statement did not cause rage among judges, as you point out in your question. For fifteen years I did the difficult judge’s work and managed one of the biggest courts. I’m not indifferent of the situation in the judiciary. And as a former judge and now as a prosecutor, it doesn’t even cross my mind to comment on a court decision that is not yet effective. In my position over the vetting, I, pointing out the particular case, did not rule out who the parties are in the procedure. In fact, this subject is under the authority of the SPO, not ours. However, as a person, as a lawyer, I cannot stay quiet about the actions that turn white into black and vice versa. The cases in which the principle of free evaluation of evidence is used as an absolute power to distance from the law should be revealed to the public, and judges, professional public and citizens must not keep quiet about them. If you look at the explanation in the public announcement of the decision, it is all clear.

The judiciary was being destroyed for many years. There are several reasons for this, it is partly related to working conditions, partly because of the lack of financial and human resources, but also because of the interference of politics in their work. However, the personal integrity of each judge or public prosecutor is crucial. Therefore, I am committed to checking the integrity of the judicial and public prosecutors. Human fates depend on the procedures and decisions of the performers of these functions. I will always call for accountability and responsibility in our actions. Because standing on the side of justice and honest treatment is an imperative for the rule of law, and that is something that should be our virtue. Therefore, I repeat, any decision, which is the product of subjective interpretations and unprofessionalism, will be strongly criticized. We must not run away from responsibility. Moreover, I openly advocate establishing legal bases and mechanisms for enhancing accountability and responsibility in the judiciary.