Risky moves, at risky times, by the current government. Step back from the European Union, but one step closer to the gray zone. Who wants to make profit on seized property, and who pushes the country on the Moneyval gray list? Who is throwing the dice, and who is gambling with the economy of Bosnia and Herzegovina and the citizens’ destiny? Željko Bogut, Edis Ražanica, and Emir Bašić were guests in the Plenum show.
Ražanica: Gray List Risk Exists, but There Is still Time for Bosnia and Herzegovina to Meet all Necessary Conditions
Edis Ražanica, Director of the Banks Association of Bosnia and Herzegovina, speaking about the possibility of Bosnia and Herzegovina to be placed on the gray list by international monitoring bodies, said that the risk exists, but that there is still room to take the necessary steps before making a final decision.
Commenting on the optimism that May 5th won’t be a negative date for Bosnia and Herzegovina, Ražanica said that, at this moment, it is still too early to provide final assessments, stating that the country’s status will be familiar after the plenary session scheduled for early June.
“The risk definitely exists and it is talked about for a reason, however, perhaps it would be irresponsible of me to state definitive positions at this moment, considering that May 5th is near enough and there is still enough time to take some action,” Ražanica said.
He emphasized that Bosnia and Herzegovina does not faceinstitutional or capacity issues, but rather challenges related to the specifics of internal organization of the state. He added that international institutions have previously shown understanding for such circumstances.
He also recalled the earlier recommendations issued to Bosnia and Herzegovina, stating that some of the requirements have already been met, while other others are still in the process of implementation.
“We certainly have the capacity and the knowledge, the question is whether we have enough time to reach an agreement and fulfill what these bodies ask of us,” he pointed out.
Speaking about the potential consequences of Bosnia and Herzegovina being placed on the gray list, Ražanica warned that they would be more severe today than before, precisely because of the economic progress the country has achieved in the meantime.
“Maybe we were quick to forget what the consequences of the gray list were. However, we might feel them even todays, considering the progress that the economy of Bosnia and Herzegovina, and the banking sector as well, have made since then,” he said.
When asked how much time is required to regain trust of the international financial market after it is lost, Ražanica assessed that being placed on the gray list and the loss of trust are closely linked.
There are very clear criteria for how a country can be delisted, but there are no clearly set rules on how to regain trust,” he said.
He added that, if Bosnia and Herzegovina were to end up on the gray list, it would be familiar in advance what needs to be done to be removed during the next assessment. But, he emphasized that the process of regaining the trust of the international institutions and investors is significantly more complex and time-consuming.
Bašić: Seized Property Goes into the Budget, Everyone Benefits from This System
Emir Bašagić, Director of the Federal Agency for the Management of Seized Property and a member of the working group for drafting the law on management of illegally acquired assets, stated clearly:
“Property that is permanently confiscated by the Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina in criminal proceedings is the property of Bosnia and Herzegovina. There is no argument for that property to become the ownership of the entities.”
He also explained the core of the legal solution, emphasizing that the discussion about ownership is largely politically exaggerated:
“All permanently seized property must be put up for sale. It will have an owner for only a short period, and then it foes into the budget and is distributed to the entity budgets as determined by the Council of Ministers.”
Bašić warned that experts’ work has been blocked by political interventions:
“All of us in the working group are experts and we know how this job is done, but the moment politicans interfered in our work, we reached the stalemate we are in now. “
He added that the lack of concrete objections to the proposed law further complicates the process:
“If you claim the law is not sustainable, yet provide no argumentas to why a different law should be written, we come to a situation where we think that someone is intentionally blocking its adoption.”
He emphasized the importance of the law in the context ofEuropean obligations:
“This law is explicitly required for harmonization with the European Union directive on the recovery of confiscated assets, and it mandates the existence of such a system at the state level.”
Speaking on the broader context and possible consequences of the deadlock, Bašić emphasized that the solution has concrete financial benefits:
“Over the past two years, the Federal Agency has paid more than eight million BAM of permanently confiscated property into the budget of the Federation. That money is used for healthcare, social needs, and other public purposes.”
He adds that the benefits would be even greater at the state level:
“There are cases where up to 15 or 30 million euros of assets are blocked abroad, and this very law provides the procedures for its confiscation and management.”
Bašić emphasized the law is not a threat to the entities, but an opportunity:
“I claim and guarantee that entities won’t be harmed, on the contrary, they will benefit from this system, because the funds are eventually returned through the budgets.”
He specifically emphasized the potential for the development of local communities:
“Imagine a local community where property worth 10 million BAM is confiscated and it receives 30 percent. That could mean a manifold increase in the budget and a powerful developmental boost.”
In the end, he called for dialogue and the de-politicization of the process:
“Strengthening state institutions does not mean excluding entity institutions, we must speak with the power of arguments and show seriousness if we want progress on the European path.”
Bogut: BiH on the Verge of Returning to the Gray List, Key Laws Still Blocked
Željko Bogut, Secretary of the Ministry of Justice, warned that Bosnia and Herzegovina is facing a potential return to the MONEYVAL gray list, emphasizing that key laws have still not been adopted despite international obligations.
“It seems we are getting closer to returning to the MONEYVAL gray list. We saw how the last session of the Council of Ministers proceeded, when two key laws were removed from the agenda,” Bogut said.
He reminded that BiH has already had a similar experience.
“We were already on the gray list in 2015, and the delisting process lasted about three years. Unfortunately, we have not fulfilled all MONEYVAL recommendations, or everything the European Commission stated in its 2025 report,” he pointed out.
He emphasized that, despite the problems, there are certain efforts by the institutions.
“We can say that state-level institutions are making certain efforts to comply with the recommendations, although it is neither fast nor efficient enough,” he said.
He pointed out the concrete obligations that BiH must fulfill.
“We have an obligation to adopt two laws at the state level: the law on restricting the disposal of property to prevent the financing of terrorism, which is currently in the House of Peoples, and the law prepared by the Ministry of Justice, which was not adopted at the last session. Additionally, a register of beneficial owners needs to be established in the Federation,” he stated.
He particularly highlighted the importance of the upcoming international meeting.
“On May 5th, a FATF meeting will be held in Helsinki, where BiH representatives will have the opportunity to directly explain the situation and deadlines for meeting these obligations,” Bogut said.
He believes that international actors have some understanding of the situation in BiH but warns that this cannot be an excuse.
“The complex state structure of Bosnia and Herzegovina is a fact, but it must not be an excuse for failing to meet obligations on the European path,” he emphasized.
Speaking about the issues in the legislative process, he said:
“We often have a situation where consensus cannot be reached on the basic concepts of a law. Working groups do a high-quality job, but without political agreement, these laws cannot move forward to the Council of Ministers and the Parliamentary Assembly,” he explained.
He identified disagreements over the management of seized property as the key problem.
“The biggest deadlock is the issue of ownership of confiscated property, especially real estate. There are disagreements with representatives from Republika Srpska, which is blocking the adoption of the law,” he said.
Still, he believes there is room for agreement.
“I think these disagreements can be overcome. It is necessary to continue the dialogue and show some flexibility to reach a solution,” he stressed.
He also clarified the position of the Ministry of Justice.
“The position is that property seized before the courts of Bosnia and Herzegovina should be state-owned; otherwise, multiple state-level laws would need to be amended,” he stated.
Speaking about the law itself, he emphasized its potential benefits.
“The law stipulates that a portion of the funds from confiscated property be returned to local communities, allowing citizens to directly feel the benefits. Also, property can be allocated to institutions such as health centers or police agencies,” he said.
He rejected claims that this is an issue of state property in the classical sense.
“This is not about forests, rivers, or public resources, but about assets acquired through criminal acts, which are temporarily state-owned until they are sold,” he explained.
He concluded that significant progress has been made, but the key problem remains the political agreement.
“The experts have done a great deal of work and the law is of high quality, but without resolving the fundamental disagreements, its adoption will not be possible,” Bogut concluded.
