Mineco Ltd. v. KRIK
Prosecutor
Mineco Ltd.
Company
2021 | Criminal procedure
Mineco Ltd, a British mining company, has sued KRIK over an article published as part of the international journalistic investigation “FinCEN Files,” which was a finalist for the Pulitzer Prize. The article, titled “A Look into the Mineco Empire: the giant implicated in corruption has problems with banks,” revealed that a British bank closed the company’s account due to a large number of suspicious transactions. The story was based on documents from the U.S. Treasury’s financial-crime enforcement division. From the company, they sued KRIK for defamation of business reputation, an injunction prohibiting republication of the information, removal of the article, and compensation for damages. They also went to the media, claiming that their lawsuit was not a SLAPP. Representatives of Mineco addressed the Press Council, arguing that KRIK had allegedly failed to publish the correction they had sent. The Press Council found KRIK guilty of violating the Serbian Journalists’ Code, and KRIK considers this decision and the Press Council’s reasoning to be a dangerous precedent. KRIK stated that the correction never reached their email addresses, and at the trial the defense attorney requested that the original email from the PR firm hired by Mineco be submitted to the court as evidence that the correction had actually been sent. Mineco’s lawyers opposed this, but the judge agreed to the request. Mineco sued KRIK claiming that the article had allegedly caused them financial damage in excess of half a million dollars, but at the last hearing Mineco reduced the amount sought to around £30,000, which corresponds to the increased audit cost, and is demanding that KRIK pay this amount. The court-appointed expert stated that they had not determined what caused the increased audit cost, which was the basis of the company’s claim that KRIK’s article had driven up audit fees.
Basis of submission (according to which article of the law):
Article 239 of the Criminal CodeDamages/penalty requested:
The company sued KRIK “for establishing a violation of the right to business reputation, banning the re-publication of the information, removal of the text and compensation for damages.” Originally, Mineco demanded that KRIK pay them over half a million dollars, but at the last hearing, they reduced the requested sum to 30,000 pounds.
Defendant
KRIK, Stevan Dojčinović (Editor)
Organization/Media
KRIK
Sector
Corruption and crime
Outcome - In progress
The verdict is awaited. The trial ended in April 2024. By the way, the founder of this corporation is on an international warrant as he was convicted in Romania for bribing a judge, and three former directors in Serbia were also accused of financial fraud.
Present characteristics
1. With the lawsuit that initiated the procedure, the plaintiff uses an imbalance of power, such as his financial advantage, political/social influence or authority as a power holder, in which way he puts pressure on the defendant – an actor participating in the public debate.
The plaintiff is a large international mining company.
2. The arguments presented by the prosecutor are partially or completely unfounded.
The lawsuit was filed because of a research text that the plaintiff claims violated their right to business reputation and that their audit costs increased after KRIK’s text. The lawyers of the plaintiffs submitted to the court as one of the evidence of the increase in audit costs the communication with the auditors that was conducted in 2023, even three years after KRIK’s text.
3. The lawsuit or legal remedy, that is, the request or proposal submitted by the plaintiff is disproportionate, excessive or unreasonable.
Initially, an enormous compensation amount of 55 million dinars was requested, which was later changed to 30,000 pounds, which is still an exorbitant request that exceeds the budget of the newsroom.
4. The lawsuit was filed against (i) an individual, i.e. a responsible media editor and/or a journalist and not (only) against an organization that organized the disputed activity, i.e. a media publisher and/or a journalist who published the news within a public debate.
The defendants are the media and responsible editor, which leads to the individualization of pressure and the depletion of the defendants’ psychological resources.
5. The lawsuit is accompanied by an offensive public relations campaign designed to harass, discredit, or intimidate actors participating in the public debate, or is intended to divert attention from the substantive issue at hand.
The company sent denials to the media claiming that it was not a SLAPP lawsuit.
6. The prosecutor did not initiate out-of-court mechanisms for resolving the disputed matter before filing the lawsuit, or the prosecutor, as a holder of public authority, did not issue a warning or admonishment to the defendant but immediately filed the lawsuit.
Mineco appealed to the Press Council because KRIK allegedly did not publish their rebuttal, although KRIK claims that the rebuttal was never sent to them. Attorneys for the plaintiffs objected at the trial to have the original email, which was sent with denials to various media outlets, submitted to the court. Therefore, the company potentially maliciously addressed the Press Council and thereby made the role and function of this body meaningless.
Additional materials
Mineco: Tužili smo KRIK jer su odbili da postupe po odluci Saveta za štampu
