Case analysis, reports and campaigns in the field of ethics and compliance

Korekt’s response to denial from ANS Drive

Korekt d.o.o.

To: ANS Drive d.o.o., Sarajevo


Smart Invest d.o.o. Sarajevo

Sberbank d.d., Sparkasse bank d.d.,

 For the attention of:

Sarajevo Canton Prosecution Office

Zenica-Doboj Canton Prosecution Office

Prosecution Office of Bosnia and Herzegovina

FAO: Head Prosecutors

BiH State Investigation and Protection Agency – SIPA

Financial and Intelligence Department

USA Embassy in Bosnia and Herzegovina

FBI Office / FBI Attaché

Sarajevo Canton Corruption Combating and Quality Management Office

Erduan Kafedzic, Head of Office

Bosnia and Herzegovina Indirect Taxation Authority

FAO: Director

Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina Taxation Authority

FAO: Director

Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina Financial Police

FAO: Director and Head Inspector

BIH public, domestic and international organisations combating corruption



Response to the Memo of the ANS Drive d.o.o. No. 505/20, dated 26 October 2020 –


Dear Sirs / Madams,

On this day, 28 October 2020, Korekt d.o.o. received a letter from company ANS Drive d.o.o., signed by the Director, Mr. Asmir Dzevlan, titled as follows: Response to the Memo-Pamphlet of the Korekt d.o.o. No. 04/007 dated 13 October 2020”, giving a deadline to Korekt to publish a public denial within the deadline of three (3) days..

Korekt d.o.o. expresses its satisfaction that the ANS Drive d.o.o., in its letter, extended the list of recipients of information to the American Federal Bureau of Investigations and the American Embassy to BiH, hoping that the American standards in combating corruption will be applied in Bosnia and Herzegovina for all the listed institutions in the title to be freed from corruption within them. 

It is interesting that ANS Drive involved the BiH Indirect Taxation Authority, FBiH Taxation Authority and FBiH Financial Police as recipients of the information, too. Having in mind that it was the ANS Drive who first decided to extend this debate to wide target groups, the Korekt then decided to open the discussion to the whole public of Bosnia and Herzegovina because we believe that in immature democratic societies and legal systems exposed to high levels of corruption, such is the case in BiH, it is justified for the general public to be given a chance to make their own conclusions and for every such decision-maker to be exposed to the public trial and justified criticism if the decisions are made unfairly, in a corrupt way or by trading with influence.

Korekt d.o.o. believes that Bosnia and Herzegovina will start breathing again when the above institutions become professional, efficient, free from political influence and from illegal collusion between the responsible bodies and companies which do not apply high standards of Business Ethics and Compliance. Korekt d.o.o. was established with the mission to give significant contribution in combating corruption and business frauds in BiH and we are joyful that our findings in the case “Sarajevo Tower” are being presented to the international public, too. Our analysis, reports and other conclusions have therefore been translated to English, herewith attached.

Having in mind that the Korekt d.o.o. bases its every statement, claim and conclusion on repeatedly checked information and documents, which present irrefutable material from the aspect of facts and arguments, we will therefore act the same in this response, i.e. responsibly, truthfully, objectively and with the highest standards of Business Ethics and Compliance.


Introductory remark: Transparency Clause:

Prior to analysing ANS Drive’s allegations, we will present the transparency clause of the Korekt d.o.o. again. It has been transparently published on pages 1  and 2. Analysis of Sarajevo Tower Construction Interruption, which is pursuant to the international standards when doing the analysis of business ethics and compliance, and assessment of risk of forbidden practices such as corruption, fraud, extortion, collusion, and obstruction of evidence, by which the Korekt d.o.o. has complied with the highest international standards of transparency in this field of business:

The Korekt d.o.o. has completed the overall analysis of the opinion of stakeholders, related to the current interruption of construction of the “Sarajevo Tower” structure. In doing so, we carried out comparative analysis of official standpoints and documentation base. We have used an additional method of logical opposing of contrary positions and have executed elimination of unfounded, incorrect and manipulative claims by all involved parties. The conclusions related to the reason for construction interruption have been made based on the above.

The Korekt d.o.o. from Sarajevo was invited to do the analysis. The invite came from one of the stakeholders, Smart Invest d.o.o. (co-investor in the structure). The Korekt d.o.o. holds expertise in the field of business ethics and business dealing concordance with international and domestic laws, standards and best business practices. In scope of our mission, we observe and analyse business processes and practices, disputable business relations, and debatable administrative and judicial procedures, establish irregularities causing damages to legitimate and legal business interests of clients, and prepare public and specialised reports. Korekt d.o.o. Sarajevo holds a specific expertise in combating forbidden practices and corruption, fraud, extortion, collusion and obstruction of evidences risks, and all other types of unprofessional and unethical behaviours, indicating the possibility a forbidden practice’s phenomena.

The Smart Invest accepted to go through rigorous standards the Korekt d.o.o. set as the condition for engagement; those include the right and obligation for Korekt d.o.o. to submit the report against the involved stakeholders, as well as against Smart Invest should the analysis show irregularities within the very Smart Invest. To support the above, I herewith present Article 1, paragraph 1, item 7 of the Contract on Analysis, Assessment and Protection of Reputation, which reads:

  • In the situations when the Supplier, during the analysis of documents or in any other way, learns or suspects that the parties in the subjected case act illegally, that there is a risk of corruption or other forbidden practice, the Supplier will independently carry out submission of a report to the responsible bodies on its own behalf, as a reporter, and/or witness, without the right of the Client to decide or to prevent the Supplier in acting pursuant to the legal obligations. In the event that the Client disagrees with the submission of report by the Supplier, the said disagreement cannot be used as a justified reason for cancellation of this Contract.

The Article 4, paragraph 1 of the Contract sets that Korekt d.o.o. can only present the truth in view of all involved parties, regardless the fact that the stakeholders frequently have contrary opinions between them, with a lack of objectivity:

  • Article 4: The Supplier is committed to carry out all duties professionally, transparently, truthfully and fair, both towards the Client and all involved parties in the case, in compliance with all laws and regulations, as well as in compliance with the international standards of business and professional ethics.


Analysis of the ANS Drive’s letter:


Claim of the ANS Drive, as given in the title, that the Korekt’s Analysis is, in fact, a Pamphlet.

In order to establish whether the Korekt’s analysis is a pamphlet, we will first state the universally accepted definition of the word ‘pamphlet’, taken from Wikipedia:

“Wikipedia: In a pamphlet, argumentation, founded in facts, is given in the background. Instead of argumentation, predominant is the passionate advocacy against the topic of the pamphlet. Pamphlet approves and sometimes even is the final goal in humiliating the opposing party.”

The method we will apply will be a comparative analysis of topics processed in the Korekt’s Analysis and topics presented in the Official Denial by ANS Drive:

Korekt d.o.o. Analysis / Topics: ANS Drive Official Denial Analysis / Topics:
1.Offer and execution of contract on installation of façade:

2.Obtaining bank guarantees by the subcontractor Euro Profil:

3.Advance Payment to Euro Profil:

4.Euro Profil contracts purchase of materials for installation of façade:

5.ANS Drive sends the FIRST early warning to Euro Profil for the delay in works:

6.Problems with mounting of façade scaffolding:

7.ANS Drive sends the SECOND early warning to Euro Profil for violation of contractual provisions:

8.Attempt at Installation of Wrong Stone Wool by the Subcontractor “Euro Profil” d.o.o.

9.Attempt at Installation of Cheaper Glue by the Subcontractor “Euro Profil” d.o.o.

10. Euro Profil d.o.o. sends Notice to the Investors ahead of Contract Termination

11. ANS Drive sends the THIRD Warning to Euro Profil for violation of contractual provisions, via the solicitor Goran Trivun, at the same time responding to the Euro Profil’s letter from 29 May 2019:

12. Smart Invest Responds to the Threat on Contract Termination Sent by Euro Profil via solicitor Jasmir Muratovic;

13. Turning point and “straw of salvation” for Euro Profil d.o.o.

14. Radical turnabout in the relation of ANS Drive towards Euro Profil:

15. Final Phase of Facade Installation; installation of final plaster:

16. Operation STO Silkolit

Remark: Korect d.o.o. elaborated the listed 16 points in the Analysis on 22 pages (not including 6 pages of introductory remarks and conclusions), by stating and quoting several dozens of documents, contracts, statements before judicial bodies, etc., based on which it made its conclusions.

1.Establishing the date of founding Korekt d.o.o.;

2.Establishing whether the director of Korekt d.o.o. is on the list of court experts (fields of construction and finances);

3.Establishing whether Korekt d.o.o. is on the list of companies authorised to carry out the works of expert evaluation (construction and finances);

4.Establishing whether the director of Korekt d.o.o. has higher education degree (fields of construction and finances);

5.Establishing whether the director of Korekt d.o.o. is a person with secondary school education;

6.Establishing whether the director of Korekt d.o.o. is an authorised official of a prosecution body;

7.Establishing whether Korekt d.o.o. was engaged by Smart Invest d.o.o., whose director, Mr Elvedin Mahmutovic was accused in the criminal procedure;

8.Establishing whether the Korekt’s analysis was made in accordance with the relevant scientific methodologies and numerous rules of construction and financial professions;

9.Emphasising that the ANS Drive director gave his testimony at court in the criminal procedure against the director of Smart Invest, Mr Elvedin Mahmutovic, and submitted relevant documentation;

10. Emphasising the promise that the ANS Drive’s Director will continue to cooperate with the responsible bodies;

11. Statement that the Korekt’s Analysis and criminal report against the prosecutor, submitted by the director of Korekt, present the pressure to witness and legislation bodies;

12. Rejecting thesis of the Korekt’s Analysis No. 14: Radical turnover in relations between ANS Drive towards Euro Profil, augmenting that the Director of ANS Drive Mr Asmir Dzevlan gave testimony before the court and was cross-examined;

13. Announcing that the ANS Drive will submit specific answers to the points from the Korekt’s Analysis only to the American FBI and other listed domestic institutions due to confidentiality, but not the Korekt itself;

14. Request from ANS Drive from Korekt d.o.o. to publish official denial based on all the untruth and/or incomplete statements from the Pamphlet;

Remark: ANS Drive d.o.o., out of the 14 listed points, presented on 4 pages, including introductory and closing remarks, which effectively makes 3 pages of text for argumentation, which are mostly opinions of claims without the source of material evidence.



1.It is obvious that ANS Drive had not given augmented opinion on any of the points from Korekt’s Analysis. This fact is a recognition of Korekt’s methodology to include in the Analysis only the irrefutable evidences and to present firm conclusions founded on irrefutable evidences, which cannot be denied.

2.It is obvious that ANS Drive, in its point 14, asked from Korekt d.o.o. to publish an official denial to all untruth and/or incomplete statements, which is a pointless request since the ANS Drive d.o.o. had not presented one single evidence that anything is untruth or incorrect in the Korekt’s Analysis. In the case that ANS Drive d.o.o., at any time in the future, submits a credible evidence refuting any sentence of conclusion from the Analysis, the Korekt d.o.o. will respect the highest ethical standards and publicly admit the mistake.

3.It is obvious that ANS Drive, lacking arguments in relation to the subjected Analysis, applies the tactic of diverting attention from irrefutable facts from the Analysis, through manipulative introduction of the topic of authorised court experts in the fields of construction and finances, although the Korekt’s above quoted Transparency Clause clearly states that this is the analysis in the field of Business Ethics and Compliance, in relation to the risks of corruption, fraud, extortion, collusion and obstruction of evidence. Therefore, it is meaningless dealing with the topic used by ANS Drive to divert attention from the facts in the Analysis.

4.It is obvious that ANS Drive attempts to divert attention from the facts in the Analysis and trying to bring under question legality and credibility of the company Korekt d.o.o. and its director through irrelevant claims on the date of establishment and the director’s level of education. In order for the Korekt d.o.o. to maintain the focus on the Analysis and the irrefutable facts, which is in the public interest for this is a high level corruption, it will not publicly debate and justify to ANS Drive on private topics, for the purpose of being responsible for public speaking and for promotion of ethic discipline in BiH; it will, instead, submit a defamation claim against ANS Drive which will be irrefutably won and by which it will prove that ANS Drive presented untruth by claiming that Korekt d.o.o. was established on 16 September 2020 and that the director of the company Korekt d.o.o. is a person with secondary school level of education. Although we have remarked that no relevance to the case of corruption, discovered by the Korekt d.o.o. lies in the fact of when the company was established and what education is that of the company’s director;

5.It is obvious that ANS Drive, in point 6, does not understand that the company Korekt d.o.o. as reporter of criminal report and reporter of corruption in the case of Sarajevo Tower may have more evidences than what is available to the prosecution bodies, which it is obliged to timely deliver to the prosecution bodies, which Korekt d.o.o. does in continuity, pursuant to its civic duty to report corruption to responsible bodies;

6.In relation to points 11 and 12 from the denial by ANS Drive accusing the Korekt d.o.o. that it uses publishing of the Analysis and submitting the criminal report to carry out illegal pressure to the KS Prosecution witness Asmir Dzevlan, director of ANS Drive and allegedly pressuring the judicial bodies, i.e. prosecutor Sanin Bogunic, the Korekt d.o.o. herewith informs all listed addressees and the public that the truth is actually the opposite; i.e. Korekt d.o.o. discovers illegalities and reports them to the responsible bodies, and in doing so it reveals false witnesses, among which is the director of ANS Drive. At the hearing, during the cross-examination, he was caught in the attempt to decieve the court by attempting to soften the non-professionalism by sub-contractor Euro Profil d.o.o. on installation of façade, to create a false image that the sub-contractor had been unable to implement their contractual obligations, because they had allegedly been blackmailed by the accused director of Smart Invest. Additionally, the witness presented a number of other untruths during the testimony, which we will publish herewith only at the scope relevant for this document. 

After these claims, the solicitors reminded Mr Dzevlan about three warning letters sent from ANS Drive to sub-contractor Euro Profil d.o.o.  (three letters of early warning have been listed in the Korekt’s analysis, numeration: 5, 7, and 11), proving non-professionalism of the sub-contractor and multitude of violations of contractual provisions by the said, which then followed to radical change of the ANS Drive’s director’s attitude, who started denying the content of the three letters sent by his company, and to support the untruth version of the event in synchronisation with prosecutor and sub-contractor.

Example of claims from the main hearing, where the director of ANS Drive, Mr Asmir Dzevlan was a witness, held on 05 March 2020:


“Prosecutor: Have you been satisfied in this period with the execution of his works? (author’s note: meaning the satisfaction by ANS Drive with the works executed by sub-contractor for façade works, Euro Profil d.o.o. which reported the Director of Smart Invest blackmailing him with activation of bank guarantees).

Witness: Well, we forced for these works to be completed faster and faster and we made certain pressure on all sub-contractors, not only him, but all contractors, to speed up the activities and the delays we had for the late introduction of the banks and so on, to eliminate those by the speed of the works. This is the usual pressure, I mean, everything in accordance with the contract, rules of profession, special conditions in construction, and so on. Nothing special.

Prosecutor: Tell us.

Defence lawyer of the accused: I apologise, we have heard everything but the question, I apologise your honour, the prosecutor’s question was whether you had been satisfied with the work of Euro profil. I have listened carefully and I have never heard any answer to that.

Judge: Ok, there, answer the question.

Witness: Usually, I mean, I was not very satisfied and I was not dissatisfied either. I have expected a lot from this contractor, I mean, I expected in line with the contract and advance payment for him to install the scaffold on two longer sides of the structure, I mean, if we are to enter technical details.”


As an evidence for the above given attempt to deceive the court by the ANS Drive director, we will list the letter ANS Drive previously sent to the sub-contractor Euro Profil d.o.o.:


On 21 May 2019, Document No.: 132/19

Technical Director of ANS Drive, Avdija Custovic, d.i.g. sends the second early warning to Euro Profil, saying:

“By the comparison with the adopted dynamics of the works, as a general contractor for the Sarajevo Tower, we have established the following and wish to warn you on:


  • You have submitted a plan of dynamics on 16 May 2019 with the plan for the start of works in April 2019 and deadline for completion of eight months, which is unacceptable and in contrary to the provisions of the Contract. It is set by the Article 12, paragraph 1, quoted: “to submit the plan of dynamics harmonised with the plan of the general contractor before the start of the works.” Plan of dynamics of the general contractor was provided to you already on 12 February 2019.

Additionally, the Article 4 of the Contract, sets the deadline for implementation of the works at 180 calendar days. We wish to emphasise that you had been introduced into the work on 12 February 2019. In relation to the above, we request from you to submit a corrected plan of dynamics in accordance with the Contract and the above facts.

  • You had not submitted the plan of organisation and technology of the execution of works, which you were obliged to do in accordance with the Article 23 of the Contract, quoted: “Within the deadline of 7 days from the execution of contract, the subcontractor will provide the Client for their authorisation the programme of organisation and execution of works; the said will give technical description of the organisation of works, plan of dynamics in execution of the works, plans of dynamics for engagement of the workforce, mechanisation.
  • You had not submitted the forms with attestation of technical documentation, as foreseen by the article 12, paragraph 10 of the Contract, quoted: “Before the purchase or installation of materials and equipment, the subcontractor is obliged to obtain agreement from the responsible representatives of the Client”; on the contrary, without authorisation and agreement, you purchased stone wool, which had not been set by the contract. By this, you violated the Article 12, paragraph 9 of the Contract, quoted: “Subcontractor does not have the right to replace any material from the agreed project and technical documentation, nor to acquire any privileges in the event of installing material or equipment better in quality than the materials set in the technical documentation;

Namely, you brought yourself in the situation of not executing the works on thermal isolation and flat level surfaces of the façade, which breaks the deadlines and causes loss of time, as you had been warned by the email sent on 15 May 2019 by the technical staff of the construction site.

  • You do not clean your waste and by this you slow the implementation of accompanying works. (IMAGE 1), and not the flats, after the work on positions.
  • You do not harmonise your work with the works of other subcontractors (Article 12, paragraph 7 of the Contract). You are negligent towards installed positions (copper pipes by MOUNTAIN company) and those are being pulled out, while they had been properly installed and protected.
  • You do not maintain the control book for the scaffold, which was requested from you.


Herewith, we wish to ask you to inform us as soon as possible in writing on the measures taken and on resolving the above issues, in order to catch up with the dynamics and carry out without interruptions the whole construction process. We are warning you again about the duties to adhere to all contractual obligations and special provisions in construction. Otherwise, we will have to use all legal and factual means to protect ourselves.


The third letter from ANS Drive sent to Euro Profil dated 29 May 2019, it is stated:


 On the other hand, your Company had not complied with a number of significant obligations set by the Contract, of which you had been informed in our letters from 18 April and 21 May 2019)

Additionally, during the past four months, since the signature of the Contract, your Company executed about 3% (three percent) of the contractual value of the works. You must admit that this is rather worrying and it does not promise the completion of the works within the contractual period of six months from the introduction into the works.

Finally, as of today, your company has failed to provide contracted materials for the contracted volume of the works and we suspect that it could be the real reason for slower execution of the works in the current dynamics in implementation of the contract.


Deceiving Court by the Director of ANS Drive continued by the following words:


Defence lawyer of the accused: Please, your witness, you cannot address me. Has the company for change of material addressed Euro Profil, clear and short.

Judge: Ok, considered, give a short answer: have they made an address or not?

Defence lawyer of the accused: Yes or no?

Judge: Without any additional.

Witness: Well, it is not such a simple answer, yes or no.

Judge: Have you had any request?

Witness: There was a request, material form filled out.

Judge: Explain.

Witness: Well, I want to explain.

Defence lawyer of the accused: You know this.

Prosecutor: To cut this short; was it in the accordance with the procedures?

Witness: Well, it was in accordance with the procedures.

Prosecutor: Have both co-investors gave agreement to such request at first?

Witness: Yes, yes.

Prosecutor: Both, Smart Invest and you, and you as the lead contractor?

Witness: Yes, and the supervisory body and the designer, too.

Prosecutor: And the supervisory body, OK.

Witness: And the authorised representative of the investor.

Prosecutor: So, what happened, why was the change of material, do you have this information?

Witness: Well, I do not have that information because, because it is not, what’s name, simply, this all is happening in the period of November, November in fact December 2019, this form for approval of material was submitted on 07 June 2019 , signed and verified at the construction stating that the system, and it is the Stumineral system, Stovario, this one is with stonewool and ther other with styroform, as instructed.

Prosecutor: Was the change, requested by Pinjic, for the purpose of simplification, in accordance with the main design?

Witness: Yes, because the designer

Prosecutor: For this type of material

Witness: Yes, designer verified it.

Prosecutor: Designer verified it, from the very start?

Witness: Yes, yes.

Prosecutor: Were there any mistakes at the start?

Witness: Because, apart from that, apart, there was, I mean, a mistake.

Prosecutor: Continue with that only.

Witness: There was a mistake in the main design, in the technical description for the façade works, it says that the final mortar is siliceous, but the specification of the works, which is the integral part of the main design, says it is acrylic mortar.

Prosecutor: What is the material Pinjic wanted to use, according to your knowledge, in fact to which he requested changes; was it according to the main design or the one in…  in the mistake?

Witness: In the main design, I mean, he asked for the siliceous mortar to be put because the supplier of material for this type of structure, meaning Austria, proposed for the material which Pinjic, in fact, the company Euro Profil installed, and it is siliceous mortar.

Prosecutor: Once again, so, he was given previous agreement from you and from Smart Invest?

Witness: Yes, yes, from all sides.

Prosecutor: Your honour, I have no further questions.

In the previous statement of the witness, there are a number of related untruths, which was precisely elaborated in the Korekt’s Analysis. It was already proven in the point 16 of the Analysis, that the said form for approval of material was used to attempt business fraud and deception of co-investor Smart Invest and supervisory body Zarka d.o.o. It has already been proven that the co-investor and supervisory body had not authorised change of material. Obviously, the prosecutor is also manipulating with the main design, because it is undoubtedly proven that the contract clearly defines installation of STO Ispolit and not STO Silkolit. The Korekt d.o.o. did the analysis of letter from designer and established that the designer had not authorised the material, pursuant to the contractual documents; in the Analysis, point 4, we proved that the sub-contractor and material supplier, without the authorisation of the investor, which is contrary to the contract, agreed for delivery of partially modified material, and have failed to do that finally, but have against the ban of the supervisory body, installed wrong material on 100% of the structure.

Confirmation that the witness was telling untruths at the Court when he justified the sub-contractor for installation of unauthorised materials comes from the very ANS Drive to the sub-contractor, sent before the ANS Drive made radical turnover in its standpoint towards the sub-contractor, warning the sub-contractor that the attempted installation of wrong and unauthorised stone wool was contrary to the contract (above quoted second warning from ANS Drive to sub-contractor).



If we now return to the definition of the term –PAMPHLET- we can undoubtedly conclude that the Korekt’s Analysis is founded on facts and irrefutable material evidences, and that the ANS Drive’s denial is in fact a pamphlet, based on the universally accepted definition from the Wikipedia.

The fact that the ANS Drive’s pamphlet is not a coincidence becomes clear when one understands that the Korekt’s Analysis is in fact a chronological, factual and irrefutable materially demonstrably shown that the ANS Drive’s director gave a false statement to the Court, while under oath to tell the truth and nothing but the truth, when he was warned by the judge that lying at court is a criminal offence. 

Therefore, it becomes clear why the director of ANS Drive in its denial decided to switch attention from the facts of the Analysis to peripheral and secondary things, and why he decided to avoid declaration towards Korekt in relation to the statements in the Analysis, but – for the purpose of alleged confidentiality – those were sent only to the FBI and other above listed agencies, avoiding to give their arguments to the Korekt. It is without a doubt that this tactic was established to continue with the deceit towards the responsible state bodies, attempting also to deceit the American Embassy, because the director of ANS Drive timely understood that it was impossible to come up with any meaningful denial for the Korekt’s analysis, without receiving the amendment with new arguments and facts discovering width and size of this corruptive affair and legislative installation of a very high level.

Please find herewith attached:

  • Sanin Bogunic’s indictment, English translation;
  • Korekt’s criminal report against Prosecutor Sanin Bogunic, English translation;
  • Korekt’s Analysis of Business Ethics in the Process of Façade Installation to Sarajevo Tower, English translation;


Respectfully yours,

Bojan Bajic, Director

The Korekt d.o.o., Sarajevo



Related posts

Share this post


Highlighted cases


About us is a portal intended for the professional public that is interested in higher standards of ethics and compliance with regulations in the business sector, systematic and objective monitoring of judicial, administrative and other proceedings in order to ensure fair and equitable treatment of all actors in the BiH market. We bring to the public space analysis of specific cases with a special focus on compliance with ethical standards in the performance of public duty, thus contributing to the fulfillment of the mission of

Copyright ©2021 ® Sva prava zadržana.