Milo Đukanović

As Montenegro's prime minister, Đukanović was part of the political leadership that supported Montenegrin mobilisation at the beginning of the war against Croatia and the JNA offensive around Dubrovnik. In 2000, he apologised to Croatians; in 2026, he himself described the attack on Dubrovnik as a serious mistake by Montenegrin leaders, including himself.

State of the evidence

Admitted by the person

The US SEC established that in 2005 Magyar Telekom executives arranged €7.35 million in payments intended for Montenegrin officials to facilitate the acquisition of Telekom Crne Gore; a relative of a senior official also received a payment under a fictitious contract. Đukanović acknowledged that the 'sister' mentioned was probably his sister Ana, but denied personal corruption. In 2025, Montenegrin special prosecutors closed the complaint against Milo and Ana Đukanović and others.

Attribution

Directly implicated

After the fall of Abazović's government, Đukanović refused in September 2022 to give Miodrag Lekić a mandate to form a government, considering that the required support had not been formally demonstrated within the deadline, and proposed shortening Parliament's term. The parliamentary majority accused him of violating the Constitution and passed controversial amendments restricting his powers.

State of the evidence

Documented

Attribution

Political responsibility

The Pandora Papers revealed that in 2012 a Swiss trustee had established a trust in the British Virgin Islands of which Đukanović was a beneficiary. Montenegrin special prosecutors opened a file and obtained a written statement from him.

State of the evidence

Documented

Attribution

Personally implicated

In late December 2019, Đukanović signed a law requiring religious communities to prove ownership of certain properties dating from before 1918. The Serbian Orthodox Church regarded it as a threat of confiscation; mass demonstrations and religious processions took place across the country for months.

State of the evidence

Documented

Attribution

Political responsibility

Banking documents published by CIN-CG and Vijesti showed that a debt accumulated on Đukanović's personal VIP card at Atlas Bank had been covered using assets of companies linked to banker Duško Knežević. The affair renewed debate about gifts, conflicts of interest and asset declarations.

State of the evidence

Documented

Attribution

Personally implicated

For several weeks, thousands of people demonstrated in Podgorica, demanding President Đukanović's resignation and denouncing corruption and abuses of power, particularly in the wake of the Atlas affair.

State of the evidence

Allegations

Legal status — source text

Not applicable

Attribution

Political responsibility

In 1992, Montenegrin authorities unlawfully arrested and handed approximately 150 Bosnian refugees to Bosnian Serb forces; dozens were subsequently killed or disappeared. Đukanović, then prime minister, was later questioned about the case and belonged to the state's senior leadership whose political responsibility remains disputed.

First Bank, controlled by the Đukanović family, received substantial public deposits, granted loans to associates and experienced a liquidity crisis. The government arranged a taxpayer-funded bailout of €44 million, while the central bank identified serious management problems and concentration of risk.

State of the evidence

Documented

Anti-mafia prosecutors in Bari accused Đukanović of participating in a mafia-type association facilitating large-scale cigarette smuggling between Montenegro and Italy from 1994 to 2002. His name appeared in the Italian case file, but he was ultimately not tried while benefiting from immunity attached to his official position.

Attribution

Directly implicated

Đukanović publicly stated that his company Global Montenegro had been launched with a €5 million loan from Hypo Alpe-Adria-Bank. Documents obtained by OCCRP showed that an initial €3.1 million loan had in fact been granted by First Bank, controlled by his family, on terms that the regulator considered inappropriate for a newly established company.

State of the evidence

Documented

Attribution

Personally implicated