After publishing the information on his property, and completely contradictory explanation of its origin, Branko Vujovic is obliged as a public official to publicize the truth about €180,000 with which he bought two apartments and two garages for his sons.
During the analysis of his property, MANS Investigation Center asked Branko Vujovic for an explanation of the source of funds for the purchase of the controversial real estate.
The explanation we got then was that the apartments were bought from savings, gifts and loans. As no member of his family had officially registered any savings, Vujovic was asked who had given his sons a loan of €180,000, which was the price of the apartments and garages. Branko Vujovic refused to answer that question.
However, in his latest public address, Vujovic had a new explanation of what had happened. Now the money for the apartments was not received as gift and loan, but saved for the allegedly studying abroad, mostly financed by regular income, as Vujovic says.
If Vujovic, as he claims, has been saving money for his children’s education for years, such savings would have had to be reported in 2005 when he was first obliged to submit a report on income and property. However, from 2005 until the moment of purchase of the apartments, which was in 2010 according to Vujovic, the Vujovic family had not had any saving reported.
When it comes to his regular income, even if he had not had any expenses, even those for food and other needs, or that everything he had earned he put aside for the education of his sons, Branko Vujovic could not have bought his sons two apartments with garages in one day.
When it comes to his explanation, the question of its truthfulness is raised, because now we do not know which version of his story should be believed.
For this reason, MANS has already provided the Special State Prosecutor and the Agency for Prevention of Corruption the complete documentation on the basis of which the analysis was made.
We believe that the case of Vujovic’s property further underlines the size of the problem, when it comes to the transparency of the property of officials and that the registration of the property itself is insufficient for the actual fight against the illicit enrichment of public officials.
Investigation Center Director