- Prosecutor rejects complaint bank stole €10
- Drug dangers in pregnancy: is happiness worth it?
- A proposed regulatory mechanism for risk-based justice and well-being

By email, 15 October 2023

Dear Prosecutors

I'm reporting a theft of €10. 

I'm not anti-Police or anything, but Ptuj Police would likely not be bothered with a complex-looking but not particularly sophisticated fraud involving €10 - beyond perhaps going through the motions. If they would care to prove me wrong the details can be found at

Please let me know what action you intend to take against Unicredit as experts in financial crime.


Julian Bohan

13 November 2023

Dear Law Enforcement

Thank you for your mail of 9 November. I've enclosed a DeepL translation into Slovene in case that's what you mean. However English is an official language of Unicredit Slovenija d.d..

Otherwise, I am responding to your extraordinary claim, if I have understood it correctly, that you have not been informed about the who, when, or how of my complaint of 15 October 2023. 

Who did the disappearing of my ten euros? As previously stated, it was Unicredit Slovenija d.d. or its agent. Their alleged (by Unicredit Slovenija d.d.) collaborator's anonymity is the Accused, Unicredit Slovenija d.d.. 

As shown in the complaint, Unicredit Slovenija d.d. is entirely responsible for the success of money transfers whole and unsundered (late Old English sundrian ; related to German sondern), from end to end.

When was the theft? As shown in my communication of 15 October at the link provided, it was on or soon after 6 September 2023. 

The exact moment of the theft is concealed. Unsurprisingly, it is being hidden by the Accused Unicredit Slovenija d.d..

How did the theft occur? Again, this is something the Accused, Unicredit Slovenija d.d., won't accurately define. But the story spun by Unicredit Slovenija d.d. was/is also at the link in its written entirety, together with my responses.

Therefore, to indicate these facts have not already been provided is perverse and wrong. 

If there were additional details missing, which you thought I might possess (I don't), the obvious next investigatory move would be to ask me. 

Not to shut the case. The "how" is your job. That's the deal.

Therefore there is a concern the Ptuj State Prosecutor may look as if it just wants the Accused to win because of their status, whether measured in absolute terms or relative to the Plaintiff. This is because no concrete reasons have been given to close the case at the first contact.

It looks as if the State Prosecutor wants to dismiss the claim as inconsequential, to avoid examining anything from a breach of sales and pricing laws, to a programming mess, to a possibly massive systemic and illegal irregularity in Unicredit's, Slovenia's, or their CSMs' handling of international money transfers, and white collar crime by Unicredit Slovenija d.d.. 

It looks as though this is because it's "our" - i.e. Slovenians' - ethics that are being questioned, by me.

Therefore please revive your attention to this complaint against Unicredit Slovenija d.d., which you have closed in error, and which I hereby reiterate and renew. 

Alternatively, State Prosecutors could announce that Unicredit Slovenija d.d. has carte blanche to abuse the money transfer system, take customers' money, without warning, whenever they want, using shrugging, jurisdictional preference, Christmas, and various drinking days as a cover. 

When asked how this is allowed, you could copy the legal rationale of the supporters of Ptuj's Town Smell, and say "Because it's Ptuj".

Apart from the amount, it is difficult to understand the Ptuj State Prosecutor's attempt to ignore the complaint. This complaint is a public good.

You will recall it was not fans of enhanced consciousness Jesus drove out of the temple.

Corruption and irrational pro-institutional biases are rife of course. Are they cutting you in? If we are going to have that rule of law, don't you think banks and prosecutors - supposedly trustworthy institutions - should set a teeny-weeny bit of an example?

                         * = * = * = *

Meanwhile has been updated to cover some new drugs, which in the view of many are causing a general danger of crime and lifelong disability, and which some trusting people use as an alternative to marijuana. It is a vexed question, of course, whether persons can be held guilty for behaviours shaped in utero. This might even be Unicredit's defence!

Suppliers of these novel pharmaceuticals are active in Ptuj, and even more so in Ljubljana.

Surely the capital, with its aromas of cut grass and blossoms, and relative shortage of suicidal alcoholics, cannot really be five and a half times sadder than Ravne na Koroškem, even under King Janša I? (See attachment, rather old I'm afraid).

As the source reveals, the demand for these psychoactives is positively correlated with the density of psychiatrists and other prescribers, most of whom are in LJ.

Even if the absolute numbers are small, it is necessary and desirable from a health economics perspective to protect mothers-to-be from added risks of neonatal injury - including PRU3 - the Pregnancy-Relevant Unquantified, Unadvertised Unknowns.

Thus far PRU3 consists of 0.45 weeks lower gestational age [4135]; raised Activin-A [4088]; lower cord blood level of cortisol [4124]; higher level of thyroid-stimulating hormone [4180]; lower reelin-induced reduced radial migration [4090,4180,4181]; a 55-214% higher odds of pre-term birth [4126,4135,4168,4169]; 3% higher odds of urogenital system anomalies [4170]; 8% higher odds of anomalies of the eye, ear, face and neck [4170]; 23% higher odds of digestive anomalies [4170]; dysbiosis and constipation [4170]; a 37% increased risk of speech/language disorders [4111,4127]; 72% higher likelihood of low Apgar scores [4130,4146,4169]; reduced brain connectivity [4099]; behavioural symptoms such as increased irritability and decreased sleep time [4110,4139,4143,4180]; a 50-80% higher risk of clubfoot [4123]; a 76-234% increased risk for Hirschsprung’s disease [4113]; EEG alterations [4099]; an 81% higher incidence of ADHD [4142,4144]; an 82% higher risk of ASD [4142,4144,4145,4147,4149,4151,4165]; a 250% higher hydrocephalus risk [4182]; 39% higher central nervous system anomalies [4088,4170], and respiratory problems [4128]; twofold risk of persistent pulmonary hypertension of the newborn [4121,4155,4156,4158]; 36% up to threefold higher cardiovascular risk; 66% higher percentage of infants with low birth weight [4135], altered birth length [4105,4125], and threefold or higher head circumference below the 10th percentile [4124]; fourfold longer hospital stay [4128]; sixfold omphalocele risk [4112,4122]; tenfold Chiari I risk [4110,4111]; 20 mm3 less (primarily cortcolimbic) gray matter and an altered pattern of volumetric development in amygdala and fusiform gyrus in ages 7-15 [4069]; and up to 432% higher 15-year cumulative incidence of psychiatric disorders [4143,4144,4163] compared to the unexposed.

At the very least I suspect prescribers and patients may be less than fully cognisant with the PRU3. The legal profession must be ready to deal with it afterwards when it is too late.

Slovenian patients and doctors may attribute such side effects to the random and mysterious Will of God, or His punishment for worldly sins missed by the justice system.

Or just bad luck. Anything but their own decision. It's never the wise elders' fault. May Slovenia's many and qualified-looking supporters of these drugs enjoy the success they deserve. But I cannot join them. 

I completely understand if Slovenians desire to see their fellow citizens' children's craniofacial development and organization stunted in any way possible, and their EEGs affected in the ways described. 

It's all completely legal, proving that just because it's legal, it doesn't mean you know what you're taking. It generates income for the medical and legal economies. It supports traditional values: "Slovenians will forgive anything, except success" and neighbours must be hobbled. As is well-known, bovine mortality*, and a mentality to match, are key to Slovenia's notion of success. 

Hopefully Slovenia will soon be forced to join Germany and others in a less dangerous pursuit of happiness. 

Germans have always enjoyed a reputation as a euphoric, happy-go-lucky, open-minded folk, unburdened by petty bureaucracy, attempts at human standardisation, and rigid protocols.

But with these novel impacts on gestation, on top of the traditional ethanols and methanols, it's little wonder you're so busy, with these reckless capitalists running about, distributing what are, on an empirical view, philosophically dubious panaceas. The relevant entries are at 4087 et seq. 

Some caveats apply when translating the results of animal studies to human embryology. Similarities and divergences with regard to serotonergic systems in perinatal medicine are discussed at 4161.

The sums show legal priorities are inverted in favour of damaging drugs. 

                               "Comparison is the thief of joy."              -- Theodore Roosevelt

To put things on a level playing field would be nice. But how? A question Prosecutors might reasonably put to medical sources is: to correct a chemical imbalance which doesn't exist, how big an adverse effect risk is tolerable in a population, if such harms are to be left to prescribing discretion?

In a large cohort, even a miniscule risk could devastate the lives of a small minority. How dangerous does a drug (prescribed or otherwise) need to be before it is banned outright?

On the other hand, how small a risk is too little, to justify the need for a prescription at all? Advantages of this approach are that risks can be reduced to evidential numbers.

Even better, it only makes sense to have one maximum tolerable risk number per adverse outcome for all present or future drugs. 

The emotion is removed, and regulations could be put to a democratic vote, by expressing a tolerable risk level for any adverse outcome as an odds ratio.

For example, a general consensus that "I would happily tolerate 20% more mothers in the population raising an autistic child if I can take 30mg Xovariz to cope today" would become a standard public risk tolerance for Xovariz-related ASD of 1.2. 

Under this rational system, only pills which showed a 1.2 or less odds ratio for ASD would keep their licence. 

And not just pills. Nigel Farage's gin, Ptuj's Town Smell, or bareback hippopotamus rodeo could all be evaluated for their ASD risk.

There would be plenty to argue about, without holding things up for obviously benign substances which a sufficiently large amount of information already indicates are beneficial, or whose risks are so tolerated they are considered a matter of individual agency, at the population level, vox populi, vox dei style. 

But you cannot impose an odds ratio limit of 1 or less on anything - unless you are prepared to make coffee, alcohol, and aspirin prescription-only.

Sadly everything populi is fickle and docile in its risk assessments. Slovenian statisticians could try all sorts of techniques to skew public perception of the odds, in order to help their clients destroy each others' gin, dandelion, or health improvement businesses. 

There would have to be some rules about the size and qualities of the studies. 

Let's prove the State Prosecutor can do the easy sums first. Please get back on the trail of my ten euros.

Yours truly.

Julian Bohan

*"Naj umrl krava moja soseda."
 This Slovenian economics proverb says "May my neighbor's cow die."