This success story has been provided by the Montenegronian Anti-Corruption Authority and is posted on this site in its original form.

Case of the Higher Court judge in Bijelo Polje
In June 2008, the police received information that the judge of the High Court committed criminal acts of corruption. Namely, there are operational details that a judge receives gifts - money to the scope of his official powers committed by the official action should not execute. As in this case was a very complex process in which involved a High Court judge, and any other persons who initially did not know the identity of, it was necessary to apply special investigative measure in order to adequately collect data and information necessary for the detection of crime, or to provide evidence relevant to the initiation and conduct of criminal proceedings. Upon notifying the Special prosecutor for organized crime, corruption, terrorism, crime and war crimes, the data previously collected, the police submitted the initiative to put the proposal for the application of special investigative techniques: surveillance and technical recording of telephone conversations or other communications to be carried out by means of technical communications at a distance, as well as private conversations that take place in private and public locations or to judge A.S.  The investigative judge has accepted the prosecutors propose, command and adopted on the implementation of these measure in relation to the judge, considering the prosecutions opinion that otherwise could not collect evidence on criminal activity of the judge A.S. This measure initially applied only to the judge A.S.
 
Obtained by analyzing the transcripts, it was found out that next to the judge in the commission of this crime was involved and another person, and that is Municipal  Secretary of Bijelo Polje - Dž.Lj. There are grounds for suspicion that the person Dž.Lj. accessory in an act of bribery. Namely, as the judge A.S. was presiding judge in criminal proceedings where the defendant is charge with criminal offenses - serious crimes against the security of public transport. Through Dž.Lj. the judge has reached an agreement with a person who is directly interesed in the outcome of any criminal proceedings that were conducted before a judge A.S. as greater, and to him through Dž.Lj. offered and promised gifts of money in different amounts and at the same time a guarantee that the agreement be implemented. The judge demanded money to the particular criminal proceedings the defendant a more lenient sentence handed down and lifted him into custody. Data obtained was though secret surveillance measures have pointed to the need for expansion of the same type of measure to the second person, Dž.lj., and the necessity of publishing the surveillance of transport and delivery of items ordered by a Special prosecutor.
 
Using the proposed and the measure order surveillance led to the increasing number of evidence and data on corrupt practices as a judge, the High Representative of the judiciary, and other person who participated in the commission of these crimes, among them was Dž.Lj. covering high position in local government. In March 2009, as a judge is deprived of his liberty and Dž.Lj. After the detention of these persons, one of the plaintiffs filed a criminal complaint against the prosecutor judges, and against two other persons, also for a crime of accepting bribes. Evidence gathered on the above method led to the investigation into the case before the High Court in Podgorica and finally resulted in the indictment of five persons for a crime of receiving and giving bribes. Trial in this criminal and legal matters took a little over four months. Court issued a first instance verdict id guilty of all the defendants in this criminal proceeding wherein the judge pronounced the sentence as a prison term of seven years, and the verdict is established and proceeds of a criminal offense - 18.500,00 euro.
 
One of the key challenges that we encountered in this case was a legal impossibility extended deprivation of property and proceeds. In this case we had no possibility of the perpetrator seize the property or its proceeds that is not the last of the specific crime, for which it could be assumed that its origin is not legally. We overcome this obstacle in the way we have in the new Criminal Procedure Code, as well as amendments to the Criminal Code introduced provisions of the extended confiscation, which means that after the end of the procedure may validly seize all assets of the defendant, his legal successor, and other persons to whom the defendant transferred the property, unless they can prove the lawful origin of property. This case has had a good response in the domestic public as a process implemented by the judicial authorities expressed a willingness to expose criminal responsibility and high representatives of the judiciary and local government.
Source: The World Bank Department of Institutional Integrity