More and More Guilty Pleas, Less and Less Justice: Miserable Sentences for Millions in Robberies and Frauds

If justice can be traded, then there is no justice. If a settlement is possible after crime, atrocities, and state robbery, then both justice and the state are very flexible concepts, and in Bosnia and Herzegovina, a phenomenon called settlement is becoming increasingly common. Simply put, you steal millions, they discover you, arrest you, you confess, or rather, you settle with the Prosecutor's Office, the court accepts it all, and you get a symbolic sentence.

The latest case was announced today, August 25, and the accused Savo Manojlović (1967), accused in the case codenamed "Papirus" for identity theft and forgery of documents, in the presence of his lawyer, pleaded guilty by agreement to criminal offenses committed between 2013 and 2016.

In accordance with the agreement, the prosecutor and the accused agree that the Court of BiH shall impose a prison sentence of two (2) years and six (6) months on the accused, as well as the confiscation of items used to commit the criminal offense, including mobile phones, pursuant to Article 74 of the Criminal Code of BiH. The proposed sentence is in line with the accused's role in the committed criminal offense.

Some would say that this way of operating by the judiciary is an incentive for criminals. Among the more recent cases is that of lawyer Esad Hrvačić, now a convicted fraudster. Hrvačić was sentenced to one year in prison, a fine of 10,000 marks, a ban from practicing law for 18 months, and the confiscation of proceeds amounting to almost 50,000 marks, after the Cantonal Court in Sarajevo accepted an agreement in which he pleaded guilty to illegal registration of real estate. This involved 18 properties worth several million.

Taking only this much money from the perpetrator of a huge robbery is a special tragedy for the state.

Seid Fazlagić, driver of Amir Zukić, reached an agreement with the KS Prosecutor's Office and will soon be released. The Municipal Court in Sarajevo sentenced the driver of the SDA Secretary General Amir Zukić to eight months in prison, and Fazlagić is one of those arrested in the "Bosna" case. Namely, at the hearing, he signed an agreement to plead guilty to the criminal offense of aiding the perpetrator after the commission of the criminal offense.

The eight-month sentence includes the five-month period spent in detention, and he will soon be released.

Dušan Gavran, director of MAK, also had an agreement with the Prosecutor's Office and received only 10 months in prison. Srđan Ljubojević, former director of the Public Enterprise Forests of RS, pleaded guilty and settled with the Special Prosecutor's Office of RS. Ljubojević agreed to be sentenced to one year in prison, a fine of 10,000 KM, and to be banned from holding a director or public servant position for the next five years. Milenko Čičić, owner of the company "Kaldera", settled with the BiH Prosecutor's Office and accepted a one-year prison sentence, as well as the settlement of his obligations to the state. Čičić, as previously reported, admitted to tax evasion of 200,000 KM.

In the "Pandora" case, Kemal Čaušević had an agreement with the BiH Prosecutor's Office, but that agreement was somehow postponed. Then Sedinet Karić, the accused in the same case, also settled with the Prosecutor's Office.

What is the point of pleading guilty when almost everything is clear? Who are the people investigating crime and corruption? Why do we have more and more settlements with criminals and less and less proof of their guilt?

How does the state protect itself? Through repentance after the act is completed? Do we have a state that is very accommodating to criminals, prone to negotiations, agreements, and compromises? The mass adoption of guilty pleas will lead to increasingly open crime, because robbery, in the end, apparently pays off.

All those who plead guilty are criminals. In many proceedings, these criminals testify against other people, and their statements are considered relevant. Therefore, the state accepts the statements of criminals, and then based on these statements, it releases criminals and convicts other individuals. In the proceedings against judge Azra Miletić, witness S1 was treated as a fraudster in public. Are processes possible in which criminals will manage the judiciary and, with their confessions, convict or acquit the accused?

In such circumstances, can criminals be used to settle scores with inconvenient individuals?

Therefore, this case also involves agreed-upon corruption in the judiciary, so the question is, to what extent of confessions - corruption will the state agree to in order to combat corruption? Our judges and prosecutors increasingly resemble priests: the only thing missing is the recommendation of the "Our Father" for the salvation of the soul.

Let's transfer the problem to ordinary people: If an honest person owes large sums to state-owned companies or even courts, and has no money, can they reach an agreement with the state to admit the debt and have it reduced? Everything is about money or real estate, so it would be good to find a lawyer who would explain the difference between the debt of an ordinary, honest person and the sum stolen by a criminal.

In the "Kurir" case, most of the accused were in state service. Three lawyers and about ten judges and court employees participated in the robbery of dozens of properties.

Shouldn't those who are paid to protect the state, and then rob it from within, be held responsible? They are almost not treated as culprits. The same state is their mother. It feeds them, clothes them, and gives them numerous privileges, and then protects them from itself, its laws, and its severity.

The state is being destroyed by those on whom its statehood depends. Where there is no rule of law, there is no state at all. Therefore, those who should maintain the credibility of institutions, protect all of us from robbery and robbers, are destroying and stealing that state. When that state reacts, then they are given the opportunity to settle through repentance and confessions, and everyone is happy and satisfied.

Someone is privileged whether they are on this side of the law or the other. So, once a mother state, always a mother state. In contrast to these privileged thieves, there are those for whom the state is an ugly and evil stepmother. Very favorable apologies for theft are on the scene.