Fight Against Corruption - Integrative Feedback of Domestic and International Activities OHRID, 15th – 16th October 2010 REPUBLIC OF CROATIA Ministry of Justice

PART 1. PRESENTATION OF THE CROATIAN LEGISLATIVE AND INSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK FOR THE CONFISCATION OF PECUNIARY GAIN ACQUIRED BY A CRIMINAL OFFENCE

1. CROATIAN FRAMEWORK FOR THE CONFISCATION OF PECUNIARY GAIN LEGISLATIVE FRAMEWORK ● Criminal Code ● Act on the Liability of Legal Persons for Criminal Offences ● Criminal Procedure Act ● State Attorney ’ s Office Act ● Law on the Office for the Suppression of Corruption and Organized Crime ● Act on Police Activities and Competences ● Enforcement Act

CRIMINAL CODE PROVISIONS (ARTICLE 82): Confiscation of pecuniary gain acquired by a criminal offence 1.The pecuniary gain acquired by a criminal offence shall be confiscated. The confiscation of a pecuniary gain shall be ordered by a court decision establishing that a criminal offence has been committed. 2.If a crime has been committed under the competence of USKOK, the total assets of the perpetrator are considered to be pecuniary gain acquired by a criminal offence, unless the perpetrator proves that its origin is lawful. 3.The pecuniary gain as referred to in paragraph 2 of this Article shall be confiscated even when it is likely that on any legal ground it is in possession of the perpetrator ’ s spouse or common-law partner, relatives in vertical line, collateral relatives up to third degree inclusive and an in- law relative up to the second degree of affinity inclusive, an adoptive parent and an adoptee. 1. CROATIAN FRAMEWORK FOR THE CONFISCATION OF PECUNIARY GAIN

FUTURE DEVELOPMENT ● “Act on the Confiscation of Pecuniary Gain Acquired by a Criminal Offence” will be adopted in November 2010 ● Central body for managing the confiscated property will be Central State Administration Office for State Property Management. ● Upon the finality of the judgement the confiscated property will immediately become the State property– no more need for the enforcement procedure. 1. CROATIAN FRAMEWORK FOR THE CONFISCATION OF PECUNIARY GAIN

INSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK – “USKOK VERTICAL” ● PNUSKOK – National Police Office for Suppression of Corruption and Organized Crime ● USKOK – Office for Suppression of Corruption and Organized Crime ● USKOK court departments – for dealing with corruption and organized crime cases 1. CROATIAN FRAMEWORK FOR THE CONFISCATION OF PECUNIARY GAIN

PART 2. PRESENTATION OF THE CASE STUDY – OPERATION DUBAI

2. CASE STUDY – OPERATION DUBAI INTRODUCTION ● On 19 December 2009 the director of a company reported to USKOK that the head of the tax branch-office Zagreb Centre, with the aid of two intermediaries, asked for € 50,000 in order to prevent disclosure of certain irregularities which were established during the tax inspection of the mentioned companies. ● On the same day the director signed the declaration agreeing to be a confidant (according to Art. 180 para. 3 of the Criminal Procedure Act).

SPECIAL INVESTIGATIONS ● On 20 December 2009 due to well-founded suspicion of the perpetration of a criminal offence of accepting bribe, USKOK proposed to the investigative judge of the County Court in Zagreb to issue an order for the application of special investigative measures against three persons. ● The investigative judge issued the order for the application of special investigative measures against three persons. 2. CASE STUDY – OPERATION DUBAI

SPECIAL INVESTIGATIONS ● According to the order of the investigative judge, the suspected persons have been secretly monitored; - recording of telephone conversations, - secret surveillance and video recording, - recording of the meeting between the suspected persons and the confidant. 2. CASE STUDY – OPERATION DUBAI

SPECIAL INVESTIGATIONS ● On 11 February 2009 the police gave the confidant € in order to give this amount, as a simulation of bribery, to a suspect. ● On the same day the confidant gave to intermediary a simulated bribe of € CASE STUDY – OPERATION DUBAI

ARREST ● After receiving the simulated bribe, the intermediary met the same with the other intermediary. ● As soon as they have parted, they were arrested. Each of them carried an amount of € CASE STUDY – OPERATION DUBAI

INVESTIGATIVE REQUEST ● On 16 February 2009 USKOK submitted the investigative request to the investigative judge of the County Court in Zagreb. ● The judge rendered a decision on conducting the investigation against the first suspect for receiving bribe and against the intermediary for helping in receiving bribe. 2. CASE STUDY – OPERATION DUBAI

INDICTMENT ● During the investigation the investigative judge interrogated the suspects and three witnesses. ● Detention was ordered against the suspects. ● On 6 April 2009 USKOK issued an indictment against three defendants before the County Court in Zagreb. 2. CASE STUDY – OPERATION DUBAI

FINANCIAL INVESTIGATION ● USKOK requested from the Tax Administration Office information on the legal sources of means of the suspects and the members of their families and on their financial assets. ● Due to the established disproportion, USKOK proposed to the investigative judge the issuance of provisional measures prohibiting the alienation and burden of particular real estate properties as means of insurance of the confiscation of pecuniary gain acquired by a criminal offence. ● On 25 March 2009 the investigative judge rendered a decision establishing a provisional security measure against the first suspect, his mother and an intermediary. 2. CASE STUDY – OPERATION DUBAI

JUDGMENT ● On 3 November 2009, the County Court in Zagreb rendered a judgment by which the defendants were found guilty and sentenced to imprisonment as follows: - a sentence of 4 years imprisonment for the first defendant. - a sentence of 1 year and 6 months imprisonment for the second defendant. - a sentence of 6 months imprisonment for the third defendant. 2. CASE STUDY – OPERATION DUBAI

JUDGMENT ● According to Art. 77 of the Criminal Code, the first defendant was sentenced to a security measure prohibiting the performance of activities related to civil service for a period of five years. ● According to Art. 82 par. 1, 2 and 3 in relation to par. 5 of the Criminal Code, with the application of Art. 466 of the Criminal Procedure Act the following pecuniary gain was confiscated: - HRK 593, (€82,438) from the first defendant - HRK 3,076, (€427,300) from the mother of the first defendant 2. CASE STUDY – OPERATION DUBAI

Thank you for your attention! REPUBLIC OF CROATIA MINISTER OF JUSTICE Mr. Dražen Bošnjaković