An investigation by N1 Belgrade has revealed that the Vista Rica investment fund, now under scrutiny by anti-money laundering authorities, maintains direct connections to Serbian President Aleksandar Vučić's family, raising fresh governance questions as Serbia navigates ongoing political turbulence and stalled EU accession negotiations.
The Vista Rica fund, which has grown to manage approximately €85 million within just two years, includes among its co-owners Tatjana Vukić, described in the N1 reporting as close to the Vučić brothers. Other figures connected to the fund include Andrej Vučić and Igor Brnabić, relatives of high-ranking state officials, as well as Predrag Mali, who maintains family ties to the presidential circle.
According to N1's investigation, problems for Vista Rica began when suspicious transactions entering fund accounts came under examination by the Anti-Money Laundering Authority approximately one year ago. The authority's assistant director, Danijela Maletić, requested additional information about the deposits but subsequently faced threats and was terminated from her position, the reporting indicates.
The fund's rapid accumulation of assets has drawn particular attention given the participation of businesspeople with known connections to the ruling Serbian Progressive Party. Journalists from the weekly magazine Radar, including editor Milan Ćulibrk and reporter Vuk Cvijić, characterized the arrangement as businesspeople investing money and subsequently winning state tenders, a cycle they described using the colloquial phrase "ti batko, ti tatko i ja" (you, your father, and I).
The allegations arrive at a particularly sensitive moment for Serbia, where mass student protests that began following the November 2025 Novi Sad railway station collapse have evolved into sustained demonstrations demanding accountability and systemic reform. Protesters have focused attention on corruption and governance failures, themes that resonate directly with the Vista Rica revelations.
For Belgrade's EU accession path, the investigation underscores persistent concerns about rule of law and institutional independence that have repeatedly stalled membership negotiations. Brussels has made clear that progress toward integration requires demonstrable improvements in judicial independence, anti-corruption measures, and separation between political power and economic interests, precisely the areas the Vista Rica case calls into question.
In the Balkans, as across post-conflict regions, the path forward requires acknowledging the past without being imprisoned by it. Yet addressing entrenched governance challenges demands more than rhetorical commitment; it requires functioning institutions capable of investigating powerful interests without interference or retaliation.
The reported dismissal of Danijela Maletić after she sought information about suspicious transactions raises troubling questions about institutional independence. Željko Radovanović, the director of the Anti-Money Laundering Authority, allegedly threatened Maletić, suggesting that even specialized oversight bodies may face pressure when investigations approach politically sensitive targets.
As of the N1 reporting, no formal charges have been filed, and jurisdiction over the case remains unclear, with uncertainty about whether regular prosecutors or organized crime authorities would handle any potential prosecution. This institutional ambiguity itself reflects the challenges facing Serbia's justice system, where unclear procedures and overlapping jurisdictions can create opportunities for cases to stall or disappear.
The Serbian government has not issued a formal response to the N1 investigation, a silence that opposition figures and civil society organizations have criticized as indicative of broader accountability deficits. Pro-government media outlets have largely ignored the story, a pattern familiar to observers of Serbia's polarized media landscape.
For student protesters and opposition voices, the Vista Rica revelations provide concrete illustration of the governance failures they have been demonstrating against for months. The connection between political power, business interests, and state contracts represents exactly the kind of system the protests seek to challenge, even as the mechanisms for accountability remain frustratingly elusive.
The case also highlights the limitations of anti-corruption efforts in contexts where political connections can apparently shield questionable activities from meaningful scrutiny. Serbia has established various oversight bodies and passed anti-corruption legislation in response to EU requirements, but the Vista Rica investigation suggests that institutional independence remains compromised when investigations approach the centers of power.
Whether the revelations will prompt serious investigation or fade into the familiar pattern of allegations without accountability remains uncertain. Previous corruption scandals involving government-connected figures have often generated headlines without producing convictions, feeding public cynicism about the possibility of genuine reform.
For Brussels, the Vista Rica case offers a test of how seriously it enforces rule of law criteria for accession candidates. The European Commission has tools available to pressure candidate countries on governance issues, but applying those tools requires political will and consistency. Serbia's strategic position and relationship with Russia complicate the calculus, creating space for Belgrade to resist reform demands that might prove politically inconvenient.
As student protests continue and the Vista Rica investigation unfolds, Serbia faces familiar questions about whether its institutions can function independently and hold the powerful accountable. The answers will shape not just the country's EU prospects, but its broader democratic trajectory.
