More and More Guilty Pleas: The State's Compromise with Criminals

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.

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

Seid Fazlagić, Amir Zukić's driver, reached an agreement with the Sarajevo Canton Prosecutor's Office and will soon be released.

The latest guilty plea came from lawyer Esad Hrvačić. Lawyer Hrvačić, who is accused in the "Kurir" case for illegal property registration, agreed to a one-year prison sentence and a fine of 10,000 marks through a plea agreement signed with the Prosecutor's Office, it was stated at the Cantonal Court in Sarajevo. At the hearing held to consider the agreement, it was said that Hrvačić agreed to a ban on practicing law for a year and a half, as well as the confiscation of illicit gains amounting to 47,520 convertible marks (KM) obtained through criminal acts.

These are 18 properties worth millions. Taking only this much money from the perpetrator of such a huge robbery is a special tragedy for the state.

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 reached a settlement 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 a ban from holding director positions or performing civil servant duties for the next five years. Milenko Čičić, owner of the company "Kaldera", reached a settlement with the BiH Prosecutor's Office and accepted a one-year prison sentence, as well as settling his obligations to the state. Čičić, as I previously reported, admitted to tax evasion of 200,000 KM.

Why plead 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 deed is done? 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, clearly 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 acquits some individuals and convicts others. In the proceedings against judge Azra Miletić, witness S1 was treated as a fraud in public. Are processes possible in which criminals will manage the judiciary and, with their guilty pleas, convict or acquit the accused?

Can criminals be used in such circumstances 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 corruption will the state agree 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 bring the problem down 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 in exchange for a reduction? Everything is about money or real estate, so it would be useful to find a legal expert who could 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 hardly treated as culprits. For them, the same state is a 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 precisely by those on whom its statehood depends. Where there is no rule of law, there is no state at all. Therefore, those who should preserve the credibility of institutions, protect all of us from robbery and robbers, are destroying and stealing that state. When that state reacts, then the possibility opens up for them to reach settlements through repentance and guilty pleas, and everyone is happy and satisfied.

Someone is privileged whether they are on this side or that side of the law. 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.

Written by: S. Omeragić