Acting on the two criminal charges against the former director of the Financial Police Authority and employees of the Financial Police Authority, the public prosecutor determined, based on the collected verbal and material evidence, that in relation to the two criminal charges, there is no reasonable doubt that the accused committed the crimes or another criminal offense that is prosecuted ex officio, JO said.

Namely, in the anonymous criminal report submitted by a group of citizens on May 3.5.2023, 18.7.2022 to the Basic Public Prosecutor's Office for the Prosecution of Organized Crime and Corruption, allegations were made that the UFP did not act on the anonymous reports and the established cases were closed without notifying the competent prosecutor's office. Based on the allegations in the criminal complaint, on 287 according to Art. 1 paragraph 2, 3 and 10 of the Law on Criminal Procedure, a request was submitted to the UFP with a deadline of 2018 days for the submission of data on the number of anonymous criminal reports received from XNUMX until the day of submission of the answer and their recording in the registers of the UFP , the reasons for their possible non-recording, as well as the stage in which these reports are and the actions that the UFP has taken in relation to them.

On the same day, on the basis of a search order issued by the Basic Criminal Court Skopje, at the request of the prosecutor's office, a search was carried out on the premises of the UFP, as well as a search of a person - the former director of the UFP. Investigators from the Investigative Center at the GOKK Public Prosecutor's Office and police officers inspected the UFP documentation, i.e. the registers for the specified period, during which the number of anonymous criminal reports was determined. According to the direction of the public prosecutor, it has been requested that these cases be submitted for inspection, in order to determine the way of recording and handling. On the day of the search, 35 items were secured with a certificate of temporary confiscation, and movable items were also taken from the former director - one USB stick and one personal computer. Later, with a letter dated September 9.9.2022, 380, the UFP additionally delivered XNUMX cases.

On September 21.9.2022, XNUMX, the case was transferred to the ROPS registry, that is, with all the files collected until then, it was transferred to the competence of the Specialized Department for the prosecution of crimes committed by persons with police powers and members of the prison police. The following day, the public prosecutor in question issued an order to the Department of Computer Crime and Digital Forensics for an expert examination of the seized electronic devices.

Investigators from the Investigative Center of OJOGOKK inspected the documentation of all 415 cases and found that some of the cases, even though they were filed in 2018, 2019 and 2020, are still being handled as pending cases, and most of the cases have been forwarded to competent action in other inspectorates, the Ministry of the Interior and other institutions. The cases that were closed contain an official note from which it can be determined how the case was closed or forwarded to another institution.

From all of the above, the prosecutor in question determined that the allegations in the application that the UFP did not take appropriate actions on the cases and did not notify the competent public prosecutor's offices and other concerned institutions do not correspond to the actual situation.

With regard to the allegations in the anonymous criminal report and the fact that the warrant for the search of a person was requested due to the existence of grounds for suspicion that the former director committed the crime of receiving a reward for illegal influence, the subject of analysis by the prosecutor's office were exactly these allegations in correlation with the obtained evidence during the pre-investigation procedure.

From the submitted expertise and analysis of the content of the confiscated computer equipment, it was established that the documents and computer data have no connection with the specific subject. Thus, from the collected evidence and the detailed consideration of all anonymous reports, no well-founded suspicion emerged that the reported by using his real or assumed influence, official or social position and reputation, requested, intervened, encouraged or otherwise influenced the performance of an official action which should not have been performed or not performed an official action that should have been performed, and received a reward or other benefit for the mediation.

Considering that from the inspection of the cases themselves, the prosecutor's office cannot establish grounds for suspicion that the handlers of the cases, while taking or not taking official actions, committed a criminal offense that is prosecuted ex officio, submitted to the UFP a notice with which it tasked the UFP to perform an analysis of the ascertained situations in the official note and the report in order to further investigate. If it is ascertained that one of the inspectors or the former director has committed a criminal offense that is prosecuted on official duty, to notify the Specialized Department for Prosecution of Criminal Offenses Committed by Persons with Police Powers and Members of the Prison Police at OJO GOKK.

At the same time, the prosecutor in question made a decision on the criminal complaint filed by a natural person against the former director of the UFP and an inspector in the UFP, for the crimes of Abuse of official position and authority, Harassment in the performance of the service, Violence and Accepting a bribe. Regarding the allegations in the report, during the pre-investigation procedure, the public prosecutor submitted a request to several authorities and institutions and heard the injured party, the accused and sixteen witnesses.

In order to determine whether the defendants, with their actions, have committed the crime of abuse of official position and authority, the public prosecutor from OJOGOKK took a series of actions, among which submitted requests for the delivery of data to the Municipality of Debar, a request for inspection of the case filed in the Administrative Court and a request to the UFP to receive a case formed after an anonymous report that refers to the legalization of an illegally built building of the person who submitted the criminal report to the OJOGOKK.

From the collected written evidence and verbal statements, the public prosecutor determined that there is no reasonable doubt indicating that the defendants used their power as employees of the UFP and after the injured party did not give them money, they started conducting procedures to cancel the legalization of his facility. The collected evidence points to the fact that the defendants acted within their legal powers after submitting an anonymous report to the UFP and aimed to determine whether a criminal offense was committed that was prosecuted ex officio, and the detection and documentation of which is the responsibility of the UFP. The administrative procedure for annulment of the legalization decision referred to in the application is under the jurisdiction of the Administrative Court and it has not yet been completed.

Regarding the allegations that the defendants committed the crime of Accepting a bribe, the defendant inspector in his defense denied the claims described in the criminal complaint and they were confirmed by analyzing the telephone communication and movement by base stations of the phone numbers of the defendant and the complainant. It was established that for a period of one year, the two telephone numbers were not registered at the same or approximately the same base stations, which points to the conclusion that the statement of the applicant cannot be confirmed.

The statements of the witnesses, employees of the Municipality of Debar, did not confirm the claims of the victim that the defendants committed the crimes of Harassment in the performance of duty and Violence, which he claims were committed against him and the employees of the Municipality of Debar. At the same time, the reported former director of the UFP was not mentioned by any witness, and the injured party did not support with any evidence the claims that people from Kosovo and Albania called him in connection with this case, nor the connection of the alleged calls with the reported ones.

Based on an analysis of all the available evidence, the public prosecutor in question issued a decision rejecting the criminal complaint because there is no reasonable doubt that the defendants committed the crimes for which they were reported or any other criminal offense prosecuted ex officio.