The Cantonal Court in Tuzla rejected the proposal of the Cantonal Prosecutor’s Office of Tuzla Canton to order custody of the accused Ibrahim Hodžić (31) from Gračanica, after confirming the indictment due to the existence of reasonable suspicion that he had committed the criminal offense of embezzlement in the service, and he was released.
The indictment accuses Hodžić of misappropriating the goods entrusted to him in the work, in the period from January 2024 to January 2025, in the period from January 2024 to January 2025, while working as a salesman at a gas station owned by a company from Gračanica, who, based on the employment contract, was entrusted with the tasks of receiving, controlling and selling fuel and other goods, running the market, purchasing, recording and invoicing goods, with the aim of obtaining property benefits.
He entered fictitious documents in the software program under the name of delivery-exit, and thus unjustifiably reduced the condition of the goods in the commercial records, created a total of 79 such documents and thus concealed the appropriation of the goods. In this way, he appropriated goods with a total value of about 350,000 KM, of which 270,000 KM related to fuel, and 80,000 KM to other trade goods, and thus damaged this company for the stated amount.
The court panel determined that there is a well-founded suspicion that the accused committed the aforementioned criminal offense, but that in the prosecution’s proposal for ordering custody, apart from the features of the criminal offense for which the named person is accused, no special circumstances were specified that justify the fear that the accused will repeat the criminal offense or that he will complete the attempted criminal offense or that he will commit the criminal offense that he threatens to commit, and for these criminal offenses, a prison sentence of three years or a heavier sentence can be imposed, as prescribed by the provisions of Article 146, paragraph 1. point c) of the FBiH Criminal Procedure Law, and because of this deficiency, the motion to order custody of the accused, which was set forth in the indictment, was rejected, the Tuzla Cantonal Court announced.
(TYPE/Photo: Illustration)
