Lidija Mitrović sends complaint against judges while on the run: They convicted me based on falsified figures

Former special prosecutor Lidija Mitrović, who is currently on the run, has sent by mail to Portal Standard a criminal complaint against High Court judge Nenad Vujanović and Court of Appeal judges Vesna Moštrokol, Predrag Tabaš and Zorica Milanović, in which she claims they convicted her based on questionable financial documents, inconsistent figures, and findings that did not match. Simply put, Mitrović argues that the court knew something in the case did not add up, yet still proceeded and issued a verdict.

Separately, Mitrović also filed a criminal complaint against Chief Special State Prosecutor Vladimir Novović, Special State Prosecutor Miloš Šoškić, and court-appointed financial expert Nemanja Nikolić, which Standard will cover in a separate report.

The fact that she sent this documentation from the run gives the story additional weight and clear exclusivity, but the real strength of what she submitted lies not in where the package came from, but in what it contains. In plain terms, it says that the judges did not overlook a minor mistake, but a fundamental problem - figures that did not match and documents that, according to the complaint, should not have been the basis for a conviction.

FOUR DOCUMENTS, FOUR COMPANIES, ONE VERDICT

One of the most striking details in the complaint is that the court gave significant weight to so-called „reports“ by economic analyst Ljiljana Dakić, even though, according to Mitrović, they consisted of only a few handwritten A4 pages, without signatures, dates, stamps, or clear indication of the full documentation used to produce them. The complaint essentially argues that the court treated something that looked more like an internal calculation or draft as a serious piece of evidence rather than a reliable financial report. This point is particularly understandable to the general public, as it requires no legal expertise, just common sense.

On page 16, the complaint emphasizes that these „reports“ lacked even basic verifiable data, such as clear grounds, invoice numbers, dates of invoicing, and complete supporting documentation. It goes further, stating that Dakić herself explained that her report was not a final economic document, but more of a „guideline for the prosecutor’s work“. This phrasing is important, as the complaint claims the court turned a „guideline“ into almost its main piece of evidence.

WHERE THE NUMBERS, ACCORDING TO THE COMPLAINT, FALL APART

The most illustrative part of the complaint appears on pages 17 and 18, where amounts from the analyst’s „reports“ are compared with findings from court expert Nemanja Nikolić. The complaint argues that these are not minor discrepancies, but entirely different figures addressing the same issues.

For the company Final Trade, the complaint states that Dakić’s „report“ lists VAT for March 2015 at €11,846.45, while the expert’s finding shows €3,512.61. For Nemesis, the „report“ lists VAT for August 2018 at €12,313.32, while the expert’s finding shows zero. For Work for You, the „report“ lists VAT for August 2017 at €11,572.76, while the expert’s figure is €10,011.96. For the same company, regarding corporate profit tax for 2017, the „report“ lists €14,858.20, while the expert lists €14,631.26. For Parmos, the analyst lists €14,541.43, while the expert lists €13,209.12, but with an important caveat - there was insufficient documentation to conclusively determine whether the company operated at a loss.

For an average reader, this is likely the most important part of the story. It does not require legal expertise to understand what it means when one document says €11,846 and another €3,512, or when one says €12,313 and another zero, or when even the expert qualifies conclusions as being „under assumption“ due to incomplete documentation. Based on these differences, Mitrović argues that the verdict was not based on clear and reliable findings, but on selecting data that supported a conviction.

FROM „GUIDELINE“ TO PRISON SENTENCE

The complaint goes further, alleging that the judge did not merely overlook these discrepancies, but consciously downplayed them. On page 17, it states that the judge acknowledged differences in amounts but deemed them insignificant, claiming that Dakić’s „reports“ were supported in key facts by the expert’s findings and opinion. Mitrović sees this as the central manipulation. According to her, the court effectively merged two conflicting sources and presented them as consistent, even though the complaint argues they were contradictory.

In simple terms, the complaint claims the court took two documents that did not match and presented them in the verdict as if one confirmed the other. This is arguably the most serious allegation, as it suggests not a legal misunderstanding but a fundamental issue in the evaluation of evidence.

HOW, ACCORDING TO THE COMPLAINT, LEGAL ENTITIES BECOME „PRIVATE INDIVIDUALS“

Another major point raised in the complaint concerns who was actually under suspicion. In several places, especially on pages 11 and 16, it states that the disputed „reports“ and calculations were prepared for legal entities (companies) as taxpayers, not for private individuals. Despite this, the complaint claims that the verdict treated the case as if it centered on four individuals - Nikola Perović, Izehudin Bulić, Saša Burzan and Predrag Raičković - and that this formed the basis for the charges against Mitrović.

For readers outside the legal system, this suggests that corporate tax obligations cannot simply be transferred onto private individuals and then used to construct a case against a prosecutor. The complaint repeatedly emphasizes that the court allegedly shifted the framework of the case when it suited the conviction.

„I DON’T KNOW WHY THEY DIFFER“

Another key detail appears on page 19, stating that the judge was aware of the discrepancies between the analyst’s reports and the expert’s findings. It also notes that Dakić herself testified that she did not know why her reports differed from the expert’s findings and testimony during the trial. For the public, this may be one of the most striking points - if even the author of the calculations cannot explain the differences, how could the court rely on them as the basis for a verdict?

This is a detail worth highlighting prominently, because it immediately creates a clear picture for the average reader. So, the problem is not only that there are two versions. According to the complaint, the issue is also that the discrepancy was not convincingly explained, yet the verdict still rested on that basis.

ANNULMENT OF THE VERDICT AS AN ADDITIONAL ARGUMENT

The complaint also points out that the original verdict by judge Nenad Vujanović had already been overturned by a Court of Appeal decision on April 18, 2024, citing significant procedural violations and contradictions in the judgment. Mitrović uses this as further evidence that the problems were not hidden, but already recognized by a higher court. In other words, her message is that the flaws in the case were not invisible, but serious enough to be recognized even by a higher court instance

In its simplest form, the essence of the criminal complaint sent by Lidija Mitrović to Standard while on the run is this - the court, she claims, accepted questionable „reports“, ignored or downplayed discrepancies with expert findings, overlooked the lack of complete documentation, and built a conviction on that basis. Therefore, her complaint is not just a legal document, but an attempt to show the public the mechanism she claims led to her conviction - from shaky paperwork to a firm prison sentence.