Serbian Prosecutor Targeted with Spyware After Investigating Trump Tower Project

Rade Bajić, a Serbian prosecutor involved in investigating alleged abuses of office linked to a proposed $500 million Trump-branded hotel and residential tower in Belgrade, has been identified as a potential target of advanced surveillance technology. Bajić received an Apple threat notification in August warning that his device may have been targeted by mercenary spyware. Researchers at Citizen Lab, a Canadian digital security research group, have examined the case, but have not conclusively established that his phone was infected or identified those responsible.

Bajić believes the surveillance attempt was connected to his role in the investigation. The case concerned efforts to remove the protected status of Belgrade's former General Staff military complex, a historically significant site damaged during NATO's 1999 bombing campaign. The proposed redevelopment was linked to Affinity Partners, the investment firm founded by Jared Kushner, the son-in-law of US President Donald Trump. The project envisaged a luxury hotel and residential complex, but was abandoned after the investigation triggered legal and political controversy.

The allegations have placed an unusually sensitive combination of interests at the centre of Serbia's domestic politics: the government's control over public institutions, the protection of cultural heritage and a high-profile foreign investment associated with the US president's family. Bajić's potential targeting adds a digital-surveillance dimension to a case already marked by accusations of political interference in the justice system.

The Belgrade Development and Allegations of Abuse of Office

The General Staff complex became the focus of a criminal investigation after Serbian authorities moved to remove its legal protections, clearing the way for redevelopment. Senior government officials were subsequently indicted over alleged abuses of office connected to the process, including Culture Minister Nikola Selaković. The charges concern the conduct of Serbian officials; they do not establish wrongdoing by Kushner or members of the Trump family, who have denied any improper arrangement.

Serbian President Aleksandar Vučić has faced scrutiny over his government's role in advancing the project. Investigative reporting has alleged that Vučić personally intervened to facilitate the removal of the site's protected status. The president has defended his actions and denied wrongdoing. He has also criticised prosecutors involved in the wider case, portraying their actions as politically motivated.

Kushner's company withdrew from the development in 2025 after the controversy intensified. The decision did not end the legal and political consequences of the proposed project. Instead, the investigation became a test of whether prosecutors could pursue allegations involving senior officials without facing institutional pressure or personal retaliation.

Bajić was subsequently removed from the case, according to reporting on the investigation. The circumstances surrounding his departure, combined with the spyware warning, have intensified concerns about the vulnerability of investigators handling politically consequential cases. However, there is no conclusive evidence establishing that Serbian officials ordered surveillance against him or that the warning was directly caused by his work on the development project.

A Wider Pattern of Digital Surveillance

The case involving Bajić emerged alongside new findings concerning Vladan Đokić, the rector of the University of Belgrade and a prominent supporter of student protests against the government. A joint investigation by Citizen Lab and Serbia's SHARE Foundation found with high confidence that Đokić's iPhone had been infected with Pegasus, spyware developed by the Israeli company NSO Group.

Pegasus can provide an operator with extensive access to a compromised smartphone, potentially including messages, location data, microphones and cameras. In some cases, the software can be installed without any action by the target, making conventional precautions such as avoiding suspicious links insufficient to prevent an attack.

The two cases are not identical. Researchers confirmed the infection on Đokić's device, whereas Bajić's case remains unverified. Nevertheless, the targeting of a university rector associated with the protest movement and a former prosecutor involved in a sensitive corruption investigation has renewed questions about the use of surveillance technology against government critics.

The findings also follow earlier reports from the SHARE Foundation that at least 14 people, including students, activists and opposition figures, had been targeted with advanced spyware around local elections in March. At least one device in that earlier investigation was found to have been compromised with Pegasus. Taken together, the cases point to a recurring problem in Serbia: the difficulty of establishing who is using sophisticated surveillance tools, under what authority and with what safeguards against political abuse.

The Serbian authorities have previously rejected allegations of involvement in unlawful cyber-surveillance. The available findings do not establish who was responsible for the potential targeting of Bajić, and the distinction between documented infections and suspected attacks remains important. NSO Group has said its technology is intended for use by government agencies to combat serious crime and terrorism, although its products have repeatedly been linked by researchers and journalists to surveillance of journalists, activists and political figures.

Judicial Independence Under Pressure

The spyware allegations arrive amid a broader confrontation between Serbia's government and institutions capable of scrutinising its decisions. Anti-corruption investigations involving senior officials can threaten established political networks, particularly when they concern public assets, politically connected businesses or decisions taken at the highest levels of government.

Surveillance can deepen that pressure even when responsibility for an attack remains unproven. The possibility that a prosecutor's private communications or movements could be monitored creates risks for confidential sources, investigative strategies and contacts with colleagues. It can also discourage other officials from pursuing cases that might bring them into conflict with powerful political figures.

For the justice system, the issue extends beyond the security of individual devices. Prosecutorial independence depends on investigators being able to examine evidence, communicate securely and make decisions without fear of retaliation. If officials believe that taking on politically sensitive cases could expose them to covert surveillance, the chilling effect may reach beyond those directly targeted.

The allegations also highlight the gap between formal legal protections and their practical enforcement. Identifying a suspected spyware attack is only the first step. Authorities must be able to conduct an independent investigation, determine whether surveillance was authorised, establish who operated the software and impose accountability where the law has been violated. Without credible oversight, even technically sophisticated forensic findings may not lead to legal consequences.

Implications for Europe

Serbia's spyware controversy presents a challenge for European institutions that have long linked closer political and economic integration with the rule of law, independent institutions and the protection of fundamental rights. The country's political trajectory matters beyond its borders: Serbia occupies a strategically important position in the Western Balkans, a region where questions of democratic governance, foreign influence and institutional resilience remain central to European policy.

The case also illustrates how commercial surveillance technology can intersect with political and economic interests. A dispute over a proposed property development has expanded into a question about the security of a prosecutor who investigated alleged misconduct. The connection is not proof of who ordered the surveillance, but it demonstrates why digital rights and judicial independence cannot be treated as separate policy issues.

For the European Union, the practical test is whether concerns about spyware use translate into sustained scrutiny of Serbia's institutions. This includes demanding credible investigations, protecting independent prosecutors and civil society, and assessing whether existing safeguards against unlawful surveillance are effective in practice. Diplomatic engagement alone will have limited impact if allegations are repeatedly raised without transparent findings or consequences.

The episode also has implications for the security of public officials and investigative professionals across Europe. Advanced spyware is not simply a tool for extracting information from individual phones. When deployed unlawfully, it can undermine the confidentiality on which criminal investigations, independent journalism and democratic oversight depend. The difficulty of attributing attacks makes this threat particularly challenging: a target may receive a credible warning without being able to identify the operator or prove the motive.