The owner’s utter helplessness in the wake of compelling arguments and a government that has only recently shed its corrupt tendencies is clearly evident. This is not only because he lacks factual support and resorts to cheap political tricks, but also due to the poorly articulated statements crafted by individuals well-compensated by BEMAX. Ironically, those who once expertly shaped regulations to their favor are now the ones drafting these statements.

In addition to questionable honesty, the BEMAX owner also exhibits glaring logical fallacies. How can he reasonably claim that I instigated this case in anticipation of the Nikšić elections when I submitted an initiative to the Tax Administration and filed a criminal complaint almost nine months earlier, on June 17, 2024?

Concerning retroactivity, there is little need for debate. First, the Constitution of Montenegro authorizes the retroactive application of certain legal provisions when necessary for the public good, as determined during the legislative process (Article 147, Paragraph 2). This was duly established through a legitimate parliamentary procedure in this instance.

Second, this legal framework has not introduced any new taxes, levies, obligations, or burdens, nor has it altered any tax rates. It simply empowers tax authorities to retroactively review contracts within a five-year window (in line with statutory tax limits) to verify whether sales prices have been manipulated to evade or reduce tax responsibilities. This is a common practice already employed in transactions involving real estate, vehicles, and aircraft—why should shareholders be treated any differently?

Moreover, the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights, which consists of leading legal authorities rather than lawyers inclined towards tax fraud, asserts that “the retroactive application of a tax statute does not constitute in itself a violation of the right to peaceful enjoyment of property,” as reflected in the case of M.A. and 34 others v. Finland.

Dear citizens, if you ever come across someone selling an apartment in Podgorica for merely 15 euros per square meter, rest assured that this is a tax evasion scheme designed to minimize tax liabilities on real estate transactions. While individuals have the right to set any price for their property, they cannot deceive the state. As such, the state does not dictate the selling price or the amount received from the buyer. However, when calculating taxes on real estate transactions, the tax authority does not rely on the declared price in the contract but instead uses the actual market value. This is not an intrusion in property sales but a necessary measure to prevent the state from losing tax revenue. This same principle now legally applies to the sale of company shares, prompting the ownership structure of the mentioned company to despair, resorting to borrowed statements from those who previously repaid their donations in far more inventive ways.

Individuals are free to donate their property, and the state has no right to interfere with their financial decisions. However, tax authorities calculate tax based on actual market values, just as they do for sales transactions. Ownership rights and tax obligations are separate issues—there is no freedom of choice regarding tax payments. Laws must be followed, even if some are accustomed to doing otherwise.

Of course, the BEMAX owner is free to gift a company with 139 million euros in retained earnings to the first passerby he encounters. However, when it comes to calculating tax obligations, the actual market value is assessed to thwart artificial tax evasion schemes where cash transactions occur under the table while “gifted” assets are falsely declared. The state remains indifferent to whether the seller profits or incurs a loss, but it is concerned about the tax revenue required to support its budget. Tax fraud cannot simply be rebranded as a property rights issue through rhetoric.

Legally, if there is a positive difference between the selling price and the acquisition price of a company share, it constitutes a capital gain subject to taxation. In the instance of the BEMAX share sale, if the declared selling price of 750,000 euros is offset against the so-called acquisition price of 749,800 euros, it follows that Kovačević earned 200 euros from the transaction. According to the Law on Personal Income Tax, this amount qualifies as his capital gain and is thus taxable.

In the year preceding the resale, the company held fixed assets valued at 120 million euros, total equity of 142 million euros, and 141 million euros in retained earnings. In 2021, BEMAX reported a net profit of 14 million euros, while in 2020, its net profit reached 27.5 million euros. These figures unmistakably indicate that Kovačević sold his company for less than 1% of its actual value or total equity. In fact, the declared selling price amounts to just 5% of the company’s net profit from the preceding year.

This clearly confirms that the declared selling price in the contract was artificially lowered to minimize the taxes owed to the state.

While his business motivations hold no relevance for the state, and no one interferes in his partner selections, the owner of BEMAX continues to sidestep a legally pertinent question of public interest that he cannot evade despite his attempts at manipulation: Has he adhered to the Law on Personal Income Tax concerning capital gains from the sale of company shares? Rather than resorting to desperate and unfounded political strategies, he should publicly address a simple query: Did he file the Annual Personal Income Tax Return for 2022—the year during which the sale occurred—disclosing the artificially low selling price, which would have yielded a tax liability of only 30 euros? Did he even pay those 30 euros to the state, or was that amount also considered excessive for his “patriotic ethos”?

Amid numerous manipulations, an inadvertent truth was uttered: “The state of Montenegro has, in the past, sold state-owned companies below their book value.” This is indeed accurate—but such transactions were conducted by those whom BEMAX financially supported, as the Deputy Prime Minister of Saint Lucia can testify. It was precisely due to these detrimental sales that certain companies gained a competitive edge in civil engineering, facilitated by rigged rules and preferential treatment.

The era of corruption, political favoritism, abuses, and privileged individuals is over. Accountability must remain intact, even if it is an uncomfortable truth. This is an essential step for a nation striving for autonomy and progressing rapidly toward the European Union. The criminal activities and smuggling operations involving the affiliates of this company will soon come to light and be addressed—neither you nor anyone else will escape the rule of law.