The National Bank of Serbia (NBS) has signed several contracts worth millions of euros with the privately-owned company Soft 4 Smart, a company that has raised concerns due to its questionable history and connections. In March 2024, Soft 4 Smart was entrusted with a job worth 596.5 million dinars (about 5 million euros) to “upgrade and maintain existing application solutions” until 2026. What is particularly odd is that the company did not have any employees at the time of signing the contract, which seems to have been overlooked by the NBS. This, along with the fact that Soft 4 Smart has been repeatedly awarded contracts by the central bank despite its lack of visible business operations, has raised suspicions about the nature of these agreements.
Over the years, Soft 4 Smart has signed several contracts with NBS, some worth millions of euros. The company has been awarded contracts almost every year since 2019, amounting to over 32 million euros for services such as digitalization, infrastructure upgrades, and IT system enhancements. The firm has been awarded several contracts in the past, including high-value agreements for transforming infrastructure and optimizing key business processes.
Additionally, NBS has also signed contracts with another related company, Smart Investment Group, which, like Soft 4 Smart, has been involved in multiple high-value contracts. These companies have been repeatedly awarded contracts by NBS, with some contracts being awarded on the same day and for similar purposes. In total, NBS has spent tens of millions of euros on IT services provided by these companies.
The ties between the companies and the ruling political party, SNS, have raised concerns about potential corruption and favoritism. Many of these companies have questionable ownership and history, with owners linked to individuals close to the party’s leadership. Critics argue that such contracts reflect a broader pattern of cronyism and mismanagement of public funds in Serbia.
These contracts reflect broader systemic issues, including a lack of transparency in public procurement processes, with few competing bids and contracts often being awarded to firms with close political ties. This practice, critics argue, ensures that public funds are often misallocated, with citizens paying the price for these deals.
