Original in-game verdict

Background 1. The prosecution asks the court to find Adnan Selimović guilty for taking a business-owned drill and to impose a 350 BAM fine. Adnan denies that the taking was knowing wrongdoing. He says he asked to borrow the drill overnight, understood Faruk’s reply as permission, and returned it the next morning. 2. The court decides this matter on the shared hearing record and the supplied rules. The prosecution bears the burden of supporting its request with reliable evidence. The supplied criminal rules require proof of each required element and make clear that accusation alone is not enough. The court does not assume facts that are not established in the record. Issues for determination 3. The first issue is whether the prosecution proved that Adnan took the drill without permission while knowing he lacked permission. The burden is on the prosecution under Rules 1, 8, and 41. 4. The second issue is whether the requested 350 BAM fine is supported by proof of the claimed amounts and a proven basis for relief. The burden is also on the prosecution. Rule 6 requires a remedy to match proven harm. Submissions of the parties 5. The prosecution argues that Faruk initially said no and that “Fine, tomorrow morning” meant they would discuss permission the next day, not that Adnan could take the drill overnight. It says Adnan’s failure to ask what Faruk meant shows he knew he lacked permission. It requests a 350 BAM fine, described as 240 BAM for the drill, 90 BAM for work loss, and 20 BAM related to workers’ pay. 6. Adnan argues that he asked specifically to borrow the drill only overnight and return it before work, and that Faruk’s reply agreed to that request. He relies on his “Thanks” and the next-morning return as consistent with his understanding. He acknowledges that Faruk’s earlier words could have called for clarification and that the reply is ambiguous. He asks the court to deny guilt and the fine. He also says the claimed amounts lack supporting records. Evidence and findings 7. The expanded message exchange is presented by both sides in matching form. It reads: Faruk said, “I need the drill here. Ask me tomorrow”; Adnan asked, “Only tonight, back before work. Can we agree?”; and Faruk replied, “Fine, tomorrow morning.” This is the most direct evidence of the exchange. The matching versions support confidence that the words are accurately represented, but the words themselves do not conclusively establish what Faruk intended. 8. The prosecution’s interpretation is plausible: Faruk’s earlier statement could mean that permission would be considered the next day. Adnan’s interpretation is also plausible: his specific overnight request was followed by “Fine,” and “tomorrow morning” could refer to the agreed return time. The record includes Adnan’s account that he understood the reply as permission and returned the drill the next morning. That account is attributed to him through the submissions; it is not independent testimony. The return is consistent with his account but does not by itself prove what he understood when he took the drill. 9. The prosecution says Faruk could explain the earlier refusal and intended meaning. The record contains no direct account from Faruk and does not show that one is obtainable. The prosecution’s assertion that Adnan knew he lacked permission, including its inference from his failure to clarify, is argument rather than separate proof of his knowledge. The cropped screenshot is less informative because it omits the preceding request, but the full exchange is available and has been considered. 10. As to the fine, the prosecution states that a drill receipt supports a value of 240 BAM and that work loss was 90 BAM, with another 20 BAM related to workers’ pay. The receipt and work records are not in the hearing record. The prosecution does not explain the calculation or show how the claimed work loss followed from the drill’s absence. Adnan disputes the support for those figures but offers no competing valuation or calculation. His inability to provide a competing figure does not satisfy the prosecution’s burden. Reasons 11. On the first issue, the prosecution must prove knowing lack of permission, not merely that Adnan took the drill or that Faruk might have intended to discuss permission later. The messages establish that Adnan asked for an overnight loan and that Faruk gave the recorded reply. They do not establish a single unavoidable meaning. Faruk’s earlier words support the prosecution, while the specific request and affirmative-sounding response support Adnan’s account. The next-morning return is consistent with that account, though not conclusive. 12. The prosecution’s point that Adnan should have clarified is relevant to how reasonable his interpretation may have been, but the supplied rules do not make failure to clarify proof by itself that he knew permission had not been given. The record does not contain Faruk’s direct explanation, and the prosecution’s allegation cannot fill that gap. Applying Rules 1, 8, and 41, the prosecution has not proved the required knowing lack of permission. Issue permission-and-understanding is therefore not proven. This is a finding that the prosecution did not meet its burden, not a finding that Faruk’s intended meaning is certain. 13. On the second issue, the prosecution has not established the claimed amounts with records or a sufficiently explained calculation. Rule 6 requires a remedy tied to proven harm. More fundamentally, the prosecution has not proved the alleged wrongdoing on which its request depends. The 350 BAM request is not supported and is denied. Issue requested-fine is not proven. Final order 14. The prosecution’s request for a finding of guilt against Adnan Selimović is denied because the prosecution did not prove knowing lack of permission on this record. 15. The prosecution’s request for a 350 BAM fine is denied. No payment is ordered from Adnan to the prosecution or to any other party under this judgment. The court awards no amount because neither the alleged wrongdoing nor the claimed monetary amounts have been established. This order resolves only the request and evidence presented in this hearing.