Eight candidates for the position of member of the High Council of Prosecutors (HCC) who were heard by the Pre-Vetting Commission are awaiting decisions on their integrity promotion or non-promotion.

Eighteen people have applied for the position of member of the High Council of Prosecutors, including 17 prosecutors from the General Prosecutor’s Office, territorial and specialised prosecutors’ offices and one representative of civil society.

So far, two candidates have passed the integrity assessment, four have not passed, and four others have not passed the assessment because they withdrew from the competition or did not submit the mandatory documents required by law within the prescribed time limits.

ZdG presents the eight prosecutors who are waiting for the decisions of the Pre-Vetting Commission and how their hearings before the Commission members went.

Prosecutor who received wedding donations of 360 thousand lei

Yuri Lealin started his career in the prosecution service in 2009 as a senior specialist in the Prosecutor General’s Office. He is currently a prosecutor in the Representation in Non-Criminal Proceedings and Implementation of the ECHR section of the Judicial Directorate of the PG.

The candidate for the position of member of the SCP was heard by the Pre-Vetting Commission at the end of April. The Commission has not yet issued a decision on whether or not the prosecutor’s assessment was promoted.

During the hearings, Yuri Lealin was asked about the purchase of an apartment in 2014 and its sale in 2017, as well as the purchase of a house in 2017 and the purchase of a Lexus model car.

The Pre-Vetting Committee established that on 20 June 2014, Iuri Lealin and his wife bought a 31.1 square metre apartment in Chisinau. The agreed contract price was 165 488 lei (approximately 8800 EUR). The prosecutor informed the Commission that when buying this apartment, the seller did not want to include the market price in the contract, but the cadastral price. This price was also included in his declaration of assets for 2014. The prosecutor also informed the Commission that the actual price paid for the apartment was 27 thousand euros, which is approximately 500 thousand lei. According to the Commission, although he was unable to provide a copy of the 2014 sale-purchase contract, Yuri Lealin submitted a copy of a joint agreement signed by the seller of the apartment, which indicated that he had received a total of 27 thousand euros from the prosecutor.

According to the Commission, on 8 June 2017, the prosecutor and his wife sold the apartment for the same contractual and cadastral price of 165 488 lei, which is the price that the prosecutor also included in his 2017 wealth statement as income from the sale of the apartment. Asked about the source of the financial means for the purchase of this apartment, the prosecutor informed the Commission that he and his wife got married in 2013 and that they received wedding donations in the amount of 360 thousand lei.

Yuri Lealin stated that he received most of these donations from his mother and in-laws. On July 10, 2017, the prosecutor and his wife purchased a 0.0109 hectare plot of land and a house of 83.8 square meters in the commune of Stăuceni. The market price of the house was 55 thousand euros, but after some negotiations, the price finally agreed was 980 thousand lei (less than 50 thousand euros). The Commission found that although the price seems to have been in line with market prices for comparable real estate in that locality in 2017, the price is lower than the cadastral value of 37 448 lei for the land and 1 000 521 lei for the house. Asked about this difference, according to the Commission, Yuri Lealin explained that he had asked the notary for information on this issue, but the latter mentioned that this was a common situation for Chisinau suburbs.

Asked why in his annual declarations, starting with the one in 2018, he did not indicate the real price of the house, but the higher cadastral value, the prosecutor said that “if I remember correctly, I indicated the real price of the house in my declarations – 980 thousand lei”.

The prosecutor was also asked to clarify why the sale price of the apartment was based on the contract price, and not the real price, and after buying a house, he indicated the real price.

“In fact, this question was also discussed in correspondence with the Commission. As I explained to the Commission, this was due to objective factors, including state policies in the fiscal and administrative field, or the state authorities valued the real estate at derisory prices and then over several years the revaluation did not occur. In other words, those who wanted to sell the real estate were put in the position of either indicating the cadastral price assessed by the state authorities themselves, or indicating the real price and paying certain amounts of money for this increase in capital which, in fact, did not take place. Respectively, we can say, as a response in society, a custom was created of indicating only the cadastral price and I believe that most contracts were concluded in this way. When we went to the notary, we were even advised to do the same thing and separately draw up a receipt indicating the real price, which we did. Why in 2017 it was different, we were even surprised to see that the real price was lower than the cadastral price (…),” the prosecutor said during the hearings.

The prosecutor also explained the purchase of a Lexus model car manufactured in 2008, at a price of 50 thousand lei, about 2500 euros.

“It is not an erroneous price, it is exactly the amount the seller of the car received, but as I indicated, the car was brought especially for me. Respectively, I paid separately that import customs duty and in the declaration of assets I did so and indicated: the contract price of 50 thousand lei and separately I indicated the import price of the car of 98 689 lei. As the actual price I indicated the sum of these two”, explained Yuri Lealin.

The prosecutor who did not declare the right to use a car in the 2019 and 2021 annual returns

Gheorghe Graur has been working in the Prosecutor’s Office of Chisinau since December 2020. Previously, he was a prosecutor in the Prosecutor’s Office of Balti. The Pre-Vetting Commission announced on 24 May that it had heard Gheorghe Graur, a candidate for the position of SCP member. The commission has not yet issued a decision on whether or not to promote the prosecutor.

During the hearing, the Commission members asked the candidate questions to clarify the circumstances under which a family member (Gheorghe Graur’s wife) obtained in 2013, by donation, an apartment of 153.8 square meters from a legal entity, which was subsequently disposed of. The prosecutor said that, according to his wife, the contract was a sale-purchase agreement, not a donation.

“She (Gheorghe Graur’s wife, editor’s note) mentioned that this is correct, but she mentions that in fact the aspect of that contract was sale and purchase, but not donation. Money was transferred to that company. Why the donation contract came about, she mentions that she doesn’t know anymore, because the company probably wanted something to hide. I don’t know what the relationship was (…),” the prosecutor said during the hearings.

The Pre-Vetting Committee asked for explanations about the use by the candidate and his wife of cars owned by people close to them and about the fact that the prosecutor did not declare the right of use of these means of transport. According to the Commission, during 2022, three traffic violations were registered in his name while driving cars that did not belong to him. Two of the violations occurred while driving a 2008 BMW and Range Rover that was registered in the prosecutor’s mother’s name.

According to the Commission, Gheorghe Graur did not declare the right to use the Range Rover car in his 2019 and 2021 annual returns. The Commission also found that the prosecutor’s name appears on four insurance contracts for that car for the period 2019-2023. Gheorghe Graur said that he is not the owner of this car, that he does not contribute financially to its maintenance and repairs and that he uses the car only occasionally.

Asked why he did not declare the right to use the Range Rover model car in his annual asset declarations, the prosecutor said, “On this subject, I even called the National Integrity Authority and told them what the situation is, that I periodically use the car. My mother was still at one time subject to income declaration. They told me that if you already declare this car, here’s a phrase I remember – ‘and don’t use it for more than 30 consecutive days’, something the gentleman who helped me said. That’s why I didn’t declare it, because it’s not a problem to declare it, it’s not from illegal sources”, Graur said.

What the prosecutor says about the sources of funds for the bank deposits she declared between 2009-2016

Elena Rosior has been working in the prosecutor’s office since August 1999. On December 16, 2016, she was reinstated as a prosecutor in the Anenii Noi District Prosecutor’s Office, after being suspended from her position in July 2014 in connection with the granting of childcare leave. Currently, Elena Rosior is the Deputy Chief Prosecutor of the Anenii Noi District Prosecutor’s Office. The Pre-Vetting Commission has not yet issued any decision on promotion or non-promotion of the evaluation of the candidate.

The Pre-Vetting Committee announced in mid-May the hearing of Elena Rosior, candidate for the position of member of the SCP. During the hearing, the prosecutor was asked about the sources of funds for the bank deposits she declared between 2009 and 2016, as well as two Dacia Logan cars.

“During this period, you declared ten deposit accounts and five cash savings accounts in euro, US dollars and Moldovan lei. In your annual declarations of assets and personal interests you declared all of them. When questioned by the Commission about the source of these amounts, you confirmed the total value of the deposit accounts you declared in the period 2009-2016 in the following amounts: USD 10,000, RON 300,000 and EUR 12,000, for a total estimated value of EUR 34,500. When asked about the source of funds for these deposits, in your written communication with the Commission, you indicated as the source of funds the money your husband earned in Greece when he was working: 1997-1999 – 2001-2003. You have also provided a written statement from a person in Greece stating that your husband worked in the construction company of the said Mr (…)”, said Nadejda Hriptievschi, member of the Pre-Vetting Committee.

Asked to explain why the first two salary statements the prosecutor presented are dated 24 November 2022, Elena Rosior said: “I cannot say why exactly on this date, but I will be honest with the Commission and I will say that I, during the course of the hearings and the other participants in the given exercise, respectively I became acquainted with the hearings and then the question arose to me that any source that is from outside the country must be proven by some documents and then I asked the question to the husband if there are any documents from the first period 1997-1999 and then the second period, knowing that he practically all the period worked for the same master who had his construction company (…). “

Also during the hearings, Elena Rosior came up with explanations about a Dacia Logan car from 2008, which was owned by the prosecutor’s husband and was purchased in 2014 at the price of 2000 lei, as well as about another car, Dacia Logan from 2007, which was owned by the prosecutor’s husband and was purchased in 2015 at the price of 5000 lei.

“(…) The first conveyance, which is currently in our ownership, was conveyed to my husband, indeed, under a general power of attorney with which my husband never communicated. Initially, in the first round of questions, the Commission asked me what our relationship was with the person who conveyed this means of transport. They both worked in the same company. At the time of employment in this firm (…), this was the condition. The given means of transport was granted as a service means of transport, with preferential right of redemption, under the condition that the sales agent was to work for three years in the given company (…). I presented the Commission with a certificate to the effect that when the husband purchased the other means of transport, the first Dacia was already in our ownership. When the second vehicle was offered, taking into account the technical condition of the first vehicle, the husband said, “Look, out of two that are not so good, but are good for the price, I will make an ideal one. It was mostly procured for parts (…)”, Elena Rosior explained during the hearings.

Commission: “Seven pieces of land are missing from the 2018 wealth declaration.” Prosecutor: “It was an omission, it was not intentional”

Olesea Vîrlan has been acting deputy chief prosecutor of the Ialoveni District Prosecutor’s Office since September 22, 2022. Previously, Olesea Vîrlan worked in the Rezina District Prosecutor’s Office.

The Pre-Vetting Commission announced on 25 May that Olesea Vîrlan, a candidate for the position of member of the SCP, was heard in the context of the process of assessing the financial and ethical integrity of candidates for membership in the self-administrative bodies of judges and prosecutors. The Commission has not yet issued a decision on whether or not to promote the candidate.

During the hearing, the prosecutor was asked about her failure to declare a trust obligation in the amount of 300 thousand lei, about a 2007 Toyota Aygo car over which she had the right of possession and later ownership, about several transfers in the amount of 197,125 lei from the Russian Federation that her ex-husband received between 2013 and 2014, as well as about her failure to declare seven pieces of land that she had indicated in her 2019 assets act.

“(…) In your declarations submitted to ANI for the years 2018, 2019 and 2020 you did not indicate that you are the owner of this car. Instead, you continued to state that you have the right of possession and use and declare the value of this asset at zero lei. It was only when you submitted your declaration to ANI for the year 2021 that you declared that you were the owner of this car and indicated the value of the car at 60 thousand lei. In your written communication with the Commission, you explained that you paid 60 thousand lei for the car, you explained that the price of 8000 lei was indicated at the request of the seller and in response to a question about the purpose of a loan of 100 thousand lei taken out from a commercial bank in 2017, you stated that the loan of 100 thousand lei was intended to cover the purchase of this car. Today’s market value of a similar car varies between 2300-4000 euros (…) What was the reason for not indicating this car, as required by the legislation in force?”, asked Vitalie Miron, member of the Pre-Vetting Committee.

“I explained that we declared for two years only the right of use. When you fill in the declaration, some data are taken from previous declarations and I simply did not draw attention at the time that I had to indicate the right of ownership and not of use. So the 2017 declaration was taken over, where I indicated the right of use. I simply did not correct it. It was a mechanical error,” the prosecutor explained.

Asked if she could confirm that between 2013 and 2014 her ex-husband received eight transfers from the Russian Federation, with a total value of about 11 500 euros, Olesea Vîrlan said, “I cannot confirm, because I did not know about these transfers. I only found out about these transfers when I was asked by the Commission. The situation with my ex-husband was more specific. He did not tell me at that time, in 2013-2014, as indicated here, about these transfers. Thanks to the Commission, I also found out what my husband was doing. When the Commission gave me these questions, I, in fact, not being aware that we no longer have any links, we are no longer in such a good relationship, I phoned him and asked him what was the deal with these transfers. He confirmed to me that he had indeed received these transfers at the request of his former university colleague, to be passed on to his parents (…)”.

According to the Pre-Vetting Commission, between 2014-2016, the prosecutor inherited 12 plots of land, which she sold in 2019 for 70 thousand lei. Asked why seven pieces of land were missing from her 2018 assets declaration, Olesea Vîrlan said it was “an omission, not intentional”.

Apartment purchased at a higher price than indicated in the documents. “I had the impression that it was based on the principle of presumption of guilt”

Aliona Nesterov started her career in 2011 in the Prosecutor’s Office of the Ciocana sector of Chisinau municipality. According to magistrat.md, in 2016, Aliona Nesterov was appointed as a prosecutor in the Prosecutor’s Office of Chisinau municipality. In September 2022, Aliona Nesterov was appointed interim deputy chief prosecutor of the Prosecutor’s Office, and since January 2023 she has been acting deputy chief prosecutor.

The Commission has not yet issued a decision on the promotion or non-promotion of candidate Aliona Nesterov.

In November 2017, Aliona Nesterov purchased a 49.8 square metre apartment at a price of 279 853 lei, about 13 400 euros, but in her answers to the Commission she indicated that the real price of the property was about 627 thousand lei or 31 thousand euros and that the seller of the apartment requested that the price indicated in the contract be the cadastral price. At the hearing, Nesterov said that he had bought the apartment for his mother, who had chosen it but had been away between 2007 and 2022.

“This is quite a vicious practice in our state and it was at that stage as well. Now, I think it is unethical to indicate the cadastral price in this way, which does not reflect the real value of the property. At that stage I had to solve a moral dilemma very quickly, faced with a fait accompli, when I had to take that apartment because I had communicated – my mother had been looking for it for a long time, to be near my house. That’s when I decided, considering that there would be no repercussions on the state budget (…)”, said Aliona Nesterov.

Asked why she did not declare the market value of the apartment in the declaration of assets and personal interests for 2017, the prosecutor said that the legislation at the time did not provide for this.

Another topic heard was the purchase of two cars. According to the statement of assets and personal interests for 2019, the prosecutor’s husband bought a Toyota Auris car manufactured in 2011 for 50 thousand lei – about 2 500 euros. However, according to the information available on sales websites, in 2023 the price of such a car is between 5 200 and 9 000 euros. Only in 2022, Nesterov indicated in his annual statement the amount actually paid of 115 thousand lei. The second car – Toyota Prius Plus, similarly purchased in 2019, was included in the tax return with the amount of 0 lei. According to the information provided to the Commission, the owner of the car, which was purchased for 60 thousand lei, is the prosecutor’s husband, but the beneficiary is a close family member. In the year when the car was purchased, the income of the family member was about 38 thousand lei, and that of the husband – about 64 thousand lei. The state prosecutor previously explained to the Commission that the close family member sold another car in the same year, which the prosecutor’s husband used in 2016-2019 and which was not declared.

Asked why she did not declare the real value of the first vehicle from the beginning, Aliona Nesterov said that the car needed repairs and the price was negotiated by her husband, and in the case of the second car – it is used by her husband but belongs to his father-in-law. As for the actual price of the Toyota Prius Plus, the prosecutor said she did not know it, but that her husband’s family had several sources of income, not only those officially known.

“The income you indicate is for a certain year, from the State Tax Service (38 thousand lei, ed.). In order to buy a car, a man can save for 10 years. People have saved the money, including perhaps from their daughters’ remittances,” Aliona Nesterov explained.

At the end of the hearing, the prosecutor said that “at times, she had the impression that the principle of presumption of guilt was used and that (her hearing, editor’s note) is a lesson for many prosecutors.”

Two undeclared bank accounts and difference between income and expenditure in 2021

Eduard Panea was appointed in October 2007 as a prosecutor in the Cantemir District Prosecutor’s Office. Since 2021 he has been Chief Prosecutor of the Leova District Prosecutor’s Office.

The first topic Eduard Panea was questioned about is the fact that he did not declare two bank accounts in 2020 with balances exceeding 15 average monthly salaries per economy. He stated that one of them was the salary account, and the other – maternity allowance. “The practice was to declare accounts that came from other sources,” the prosecutor said.

The second topic discussed was the difference detected by the Commission between the Panea family’s income and expenses for 2021, amounting to more than 200 thousand lei. The prosecutor told the Commission that he had cash in his possession of up to 130 thousand lei, which he was not obliged to declare.

Eduard Panea was also asked about three criminal cases he handled, for which the College of Discipline and Ethics in February 2017 imposed a disciplinary sanction – reprimand, which was overturned by the SCP in March 2017, with the application of the disciplinary sanction warning. The Board then found as disciplinary misconduct “the late resolution of criminal cases, with violation of examination deadlines and lack of promptness in the proceedings under consideration.” The prosecutor said at the hearing that he did not believe the charge of lack of promptness was appropriate.

The last part of the hearing of prosecutor Eduard Panea took place in closed session, without mentioning the topics discussed.

“I believe that every prosecutor is still a natural person, who has a family life, a social life, and most of the time the reluctance to talk about personal matters is not necessarily due to a tendency to hide something, but is mainly motivated to protect those close to them from public exposure,” Panea said at the end of the hearing.

The Commission has not yet issued a decision on the Chief Prosecutor of the Leova District Prosecutor’s Office.

Apartment purchased with money from several sources and a loan of 7 thousand euros from mother-in-law

Vasile Plevan was appointed to the position of prosecutor in the Prosecutor’s Office of Straseni in March 2014. Later, in 2015, he was appointed to the position of prosecutor in the Prosecutor’s Office of Ialoveni district. He has been an anti-corruption prosecutor since October 2019, and since November 2022 he has been acting Deputy Chief Prosecutor of the Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office.

Vasile Plevan’s hearing began with questions about the purchase of an apartment in January 2016 with financial means from seven different sources. The property, worth about 350 thousand lei, was allegedly bought including with the help of a $3 thousand donation the family received in 2014 from the wife’s mother, who has been working abroad since 2009, according to the prosecutor. In 2010, the prosecutor had come into possession of a 23-square-meter apartment, a dorm room, according to the state prosecutor, bought by his parents, in which he did not live and which he sold in 2015 for about 99 thousand lei.

In addition, the anti-corruption prosecutor’s wife, a judicial assistant at the Supreme Court of Justice, received a loan of 7 thousand euros from her mother in 2020, which Vasile Plevan only included in his declaration of assets and personal interests for 2021. The money was borrowed in December 2020, but spent by March 2021 on the purchase and repair of a car. The acting deputy chief prosecutor of the PA said his mother-in-law had been working since 2019 in Italy and the Commission had presented her with her employment contract from the end of 2020.

And in the case of prosecutor Vasile Plevan, the last part of the hearing took place in closed session.

“What is certain now – the Commission did not deny the existence of unofficial secret notes from the NAC and SIS about me. I would have liked to have had access to these notes before being heard publicly, which would have been fair enough,” Plevan remarked at the end of the hearing.

Vasile Plevan is also awaiting the decision of the Pre-Vetting Committee.

Three disciplinary sanctions: “I had the courage to come against the system”

Mariana Cherpec was appointed in 2010 as a prosecutor in the Prosecutor’s Office of the Centre sector, Chisinau municipality. In October 2021, she was appointed spokeswoman of the General Prosecutor’s Office, a position she held for about a year. Currently, she is a prosecutor in the Prosecutor’s Office of the municipality of Chisinau, Main Office.

Mariana Cherpec was asked about the three disciplinary sanctions applied against her in 2014-2016 – two reprimands and one warning.

“I had the courage to come out against the system and it cost me three disciplinary proceedings. The independence of the prosecutor is beautifully written on paper and in the law on the prosecution, but in practice you have to fight for it,” Mariana Cherpec told the Commission members. According to the prosecutor, at that time several cases she was handling were withdrawn because she did not have “the same vision” as the then chief prosecutor of the Chisinau City Prosecutor’s Office, Centre sector. Also during that period, the prosecutor claims she was assigned more criminal cases than her colleagues. She also stated that she did not challenge the decisions of the Disciplinary Board because she did not trust the impartiality of the members of the SCP.

“I am confident that the Commission will objectively analyse all the circumstances in the part concerning me and give them a fair and impartial assessment. In the course of my work, in relation to these disciplinary proceedings in which I have been targeted, I do not want to blame only the chief prosecutor or the institution, I admit that some minor omissions were admitted, but given the level of seriousness of these, I consider that they are not of a high gravity that could determine my lack of ethical integrity (…),” Cherpec said at the end of the meeting.

The Commission has not yet taken a decision on whether or not to pass the assessment of Mariana Cherpec.

The hearings of the candidates took place from 21-28 April. Only those who pass the evaluation will be eligible for election to the new SCP.

The integrity checks cover a period of 15 years. The assessment of candidates for membership of the self-administrative bodies of judges (Superior Council of Magistracy – SCM) and prosecutors (SCP) involves a verification of their financial and ethical integrity, carried out on the basis of Law 26/2022. The task of the Pre-Vetting Commission is to verify whether the candidates have properly declared their assets and whether this corresponds to their income, whether they have behaved ethically during the exercise of their office or whether they have adopted arbitrary acts, including whether they have admitted conflicts of interest.

The Pre-Vetting Committee has so far issued decisions on 10 candidates for membership of the SCP. Two candidates passed the integrity assessment, four did not pass, and four others withdrew from the competition or did not submit the mandatory documents required by law within the prescribed time limits, so they also failed the assessment.

Who are the 10 candidates for membership of the SCP on which the Pre-Vetting Committee has so far issued decisions.

The article was developed in the framework of the Project “Accountability of the Justice Sector in Moldova”, implemented by the Centre for Analysis and Prevention of Corruption, with the support of Freedom House in Moldova. The views expressed reflect the position of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views of the funder.