![](\"https:\/\/sp-ao.shortpixel.ai\/client\/to_webp,q_glossy,ret_img,w_1200\/https:\/\/www.mans.co.me\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/01\/Grafika-Enis.png\")
<\/p>\nThe Agency for Prevention of Corruption (APC) made another decision by believing the “word” of a public official instead of the official data it owns. The decision was made after two judgments of the Administrative Court and almost three years since MANS submitted the initiative to the Agency.<\/p>\n
In its decision, the APC fully believed what it received as a testimony from Enis Bakovi\u0107, without additional verification of the income that this former police official used to justify the purchase of real estate in \u017dabljak. Bakovi\u0107 stated that he had received 10,000 euros from his family for the purchase of real estate, and that it was income generated during 2015.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Enisa Bakovi\u0107 received half of that amount (5,000 euros) from his father, \u0160u\u0107ko Bakovi\u0107, also a public official (former Ombudsman), while he received the other half from his sisters (2,500 euros each). In the purchase agreement, it is stated that Enis Bakovi\u0107 bought the mentioned properties in \u017dabljak in September 2015.<\/p>\n
Enisa Bakovi\u0107 received half of that amount (5,000 euros) from his father, \u0160u\u0107ko Bakovi\u0107, also a public official (former Ombudsman), while he received the other half from his sisters (2,500 euros each). In the purchase agreement, it is stated that Enis Bakovi\u0107 bought the mentioned properties in \u017dabljak in September 2015.<\/p>\n
Checking the data from the property record of the family of \u0160u\u0107ko Bakovi\u0107 for the mentioned 2015 shows that the Bakovi\u0107 family had to give up almost half of the earnings of the entire household in order to be able to give Enis Bakovi\u0107 10,000 euros for the purchase of a chalet in \u017dabljak in September of that year.<\/p>\n
These type of allocations in favour of Bakovi\u0107 Jr. were most likely the greatest burden for his sisters, who at that moment were earning 480 and 610 euros per month respectively. During that period, the Bakovi\u0107 family did not report the acquisition of any other income.<\/p>\n
From what is available from the APC\u2019s decision, it is obvious that the institution did not look into the credibility of Bakovi\u0107’s statement in detail, or questioned the fact that the family’s “donations” were just below the legal limit, which ensured that they did not have to report them.<\/p>\n
MANS will file a complaint with the Administrative Court against such a decision of APC within the legal deadline.<\/p>\n
This is not the first time for Enis Bakovi\u0107 to use his family’s “help” to explain the acquisition of property that he could not finance from officially reported income. At the end of 2019, after the media reports, Bakovi\u0107 admitted owning a “Rolex” watch, model “Submariner Date”, but that he bought it from a relative for an amount of less than 5,000 euros, and therefore did not consider that he had an obligation to report it to the APC. In this case too, there was no adequate reaction from the Agency for Prevention of Corruption.<\/p>\n
\u200bWhen it comes to the second initiative, for which there are already two judgments of the Administrative Court, which refers to the collection of expensive watches of the former President of Montenegro, Milo \u0110ukanovi\u0107, the Agency violated all the deadlines for acting on it, which brings the director of APC, Jelena Perovi\u0107 in the zone of criminal responsibility.<\/p>\n
The justifications that a decision cannot be made because there is no “material evidence” are frivolous, especially after learning that the Agency still has not asked \u0110ukanovi\u0107 for a statement about the watches, which was its obligation under Article 30 of the Law on Prevention of Corruption.<\/p>\n
MANS<\/strong><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" The Agency for Prevention of Corruption (APC) made another decision by believing the “word” of a public official instead of the official data it owns. The decision was made after two judgments of the Administrative Court and almost three years since MANS submitted the initiative to the Agency. In its decision, the APC fully believed<\/p>\n