N1 learns that former prosecutor Mirela Aleric-Puklin has filed a criminal complaint against former State Attorney-General Zlata Hrvoj-Sipek.

The complaint, which Aleric-Puklin confirmed to have filed with the anti-corruption office USKOK, relates to Hrvoj-Sipek’s handling of the Agrokor case, in particular the appointment of Ismet Kamal as an expert witness despite an alleged conflict of interest due to his previous employment at KPMG Croatia, a company with business ties to Agrokor.

Hrvoj-Sipek was warned about a conflict of interest

According to the complaint, Hrvoj-Sipek was warned about Kamal’s conflict of interest but insisted on his involvement. The situation was further complicated by the fact that KPMG Croatia had been working for Agrokor for years, which ultimately led to KPMG Poland being commissioned to analyse the matter. This decision triggered numerous legal debates and challenges to the proceedings.

Lawyer Veljko Miljevic told N1 that such cases are rare and he cannot recall a precedent in which a State-Attorney filed a lawsuit against a State Attorney-General.

He emphasised that the irregularities in the Agrokor case were obvious from the beginning, especially regarding the critical role of expert analysis in such complex cases.

The complaint also claimed that Kamal did not fulfil the legal requirements to act as an expert witness in Croatia, as he did not speak Croatian. His findings were later dismissed as inadmissible evidence.

The State Attorney-General must now decide how to proceed

Despite this, Hrvoj-Sipek reportedly continued to insist on Kamal’s involvement, which led to further legal complications and decisions by the High Criminal Court.

The current situation is delicate, as Zlata Hrvoj-Sipek is now Deputy State Attorney- General. The State Attorney-General must now decide how to proceed, especially as the complaint comes from the same institution. Miljevic explained that the Attorney-General should inform the State Attorney’s Council, which would then decide on the next steps.

This case sheds new light on the actions of high-ranking officials within the judiciary and sparks discussions about accountability and transparency in decision-making within state institutions. Further enquiries and investigations are expected to clarify the circumstances of this complex case.