The Pre-Vetting Commission has so far issued decisions on 10 candidates for the position of member of the Superior Council of Prosecutors (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 set time limits, so they also failed the assessment.

According to the Pre-Vetting Commission, among the topics addressed during the hearings were the source of financial means used by candidates to purchase goods and property, the difference between the income obtained and the expenses incurred, as well as situations where certain aspects were not reflected in the declarations of assets and interests submitted to the National Integrity Authority.

ZdG presents the 10 prosecutors on whom the Pre-Vetting Commission issued decisions and how their hearings went.

First candidate for the position of member of the PSC who passed the Pre-Vetting Commission’s evaluation

Dumitru Obadă has been working in the prosecution service since 2011 and is currently serving as a government agent of Moldova before the ECtHR. Previously, he held the position of Chief Prosecutor of the Criminological Analysis, Opinion and Legislation Proposals Section within the Directorate of Policy, Reforms and Protection of the Interests of Society of the General Prosecutor’s Office.

Dumitru Obadă was heard by the Pre-Vetting Commission on 21 April, in the context of the process of assessing the financial and ethical integrity of candidates for membership of the self-governing body of prosecutors. And at the beginning of May the Pre-Vetting Commission announced the result of the assessment of Dumitru Obadă. According to the Commission, the prosecutor passed the evaluation, meeting “the criteria of ethical and financial integrity”.

The candidate for the post of member of the PSC was asked during the hearings about a financial and ethical issue – the fact that he did not declare the rent expenses for his wife’s work in the way required by law.

According to the Commission, in the assets statement for the last five years, which Dumitru Obadă submitted on 3 February 2023 during the evaluation process, he declared various expenses related to his wife’s notary office.

“The amount he indicated as rent expenses for each of the five years was different from the amounts that were declared to the State Tax Service (hereinafter SFS). In the declaration for the last five years, the candidate declared rent expenses for 2017 in the amount of 29,300 lei; 137,382 lei were declared to the SFS for that year. For the year 2018, he declared rental expenses in the amount of 28,100 lei; 130,932 lei were declared to the SFS. For 2019, the candidate declared rental expenses of 160,000 lei; 205,746 lei were declared to the SFS. For 2020, he declared rental expenses of 228,000 lei; 214,125 lei were declared to the SFS. For 2021, he declared rental expenses of 327,000 lei; 323,099 lei were declared to the SFS for that year. Thus, for the years 2017- 2019, in his declaration for the last 5 years, the candidate understated the amount of rent expenses incurred by his wife’s notary office. For the years 2020 and 2021, he overestimated the amount of rent expenses. The candidate stated in his declaration for the last 5 years that each amount provided is an approximation,” the Commission’s decision issued on April 26, 2023 states.

When questioned by the Commission during rounds of written questions and during hearings about the difference between the amounts of rent expenses in the candidate’s statement for the last five years and in his statements to the SFS, Dumitru Obadă explained that the amounts he provided in his statement for the last five years were estimates of the amount of rent paid and that he did not receive information about actual rent costs from his accountant when he filed his statement. In response to the Commission’s written questions, Dumitru Obadă provided the rental contracts for the period 2017 to 2021, as well as documents on the calculation of rent expenses for 2017.

Transfers of over €115 thousand from mother-in-law

Rodica Ciobanu, the candidate proposed by the Academy of Sciences, currently holds the position of director of the Public Law Department and is also a university lecturer at the State University of Moldova. She has been a lecturer since 1999. She has almost 25 years of experience at the State University of Moldova and the University of the Academy of Sciences of Moldova, including serving as Dean of the Faculty of Socio-Humanistic Sciences of the University of the Academy of Sciences and Project Manager of the Scientific Research Laboratory of the State University of Moldova.

Rodica Ciobanu was the second person to promote the evaluation of financial and ethical integrity. In the decision issued on 5 June the Commission noted that it had no serious doubts about the candidate’s ethical integrity.

Ciobanu was asked at the hearings about the source of funds for donations/transfers from her mother-in-law to her husband between 2010-2011 and 2016-2021.

In 2010, the candidate’s husband received €5,000 in cash from her mother for the purpose of building a holiday home. In 2011, the candidate’s husband deposited €57 500 in his bank deposit account. In response to the Commission’s written questions about the source of the 57 500 euros, Rodica Ciobanu explained that 20 000 euros came from the sale of an apartment in Chisinau and 37 500 euros came from her mother-in-law.

The apartment was sold in 2011 for about 331 thousand lei, an estimated 20 279 euros. The candidate’s husband owned one-twelfth of the apartment, one-fourth belonged to his brother and one-fourth – to his mother. The candidate was asked to explain why her husband received the full amount from the sale transaction, if he only owned one twelfth of the apartment. In her written answers and during the hearings, the candidate indicated that her mother-in-law and her husband’s brother had contributed their share of the sale price of the apartment to the construction of a holiday home, where they would live when they returned from abroad.

In response to written questions and questions during the hearings, referring to the source of funds for the candidate’s mother-in-law’s donations of 42 500 euros in the period 2010-2011 and more than 73 thousand euros in the period 2016-2021, the candidate provided a certificate from the Social Insurance Service of the European state where her mother-in-law works. According to this document, in the period 2002-2011, the applicant’s mother-in-law had a total gross income of approximately 47 thousand euros. According to the same certificate, in the period 2012-2020, the candidate’s mother-in-law had a total gross income of more than 112 thousand euros.

“In the period 2010-2011 and 2016-2021, the candidate’s mother-in-law transferred 115 715 euros (42 500 euros in cash and 73 215 euros through bank transfers to her son – the candidate’s husband). Of this amount, €82 715 was for investments in the holiday home, where the candidate’s family lives and also where the mother-in-law will live when she returns from abroad (where she has been living and working since 2002),” the Commission decision states.

During the hearings, Ciobanu testified that she began construction on the vacation home in 2008-2009 and that her family has lived there since late 2014. The candidate presented plans for the two-story building and a photo showing two separate entrances to the vacation home. She also explained that the property was built over several years and, in addition to her mother-in-law’s donations, her and her husband’s income was invested. The nominee of the Academy of Sciences said that due to the long period of construction work, it was impossible to estimate the total investment in the holiday home. The net salary income of the candidate and her husband from 2007 to 2021 amounted to about 5.3 million lei.

Gheorghe Borș has been working in the prosecutor’s office since September 1998, when he was appointed as a prosecutor in the Hîncești District Prosecutor’s Office. He is currently a prosecutor in the Policy, Reforms and Project Management Section of the Prosecutor General’s Office (PG), a position he has held since December 2017. The Pre-Vetting Commission announced on 7 June the result of the evaluation of the candidate for the position of member of the Superior Council of Prosecutors (SCP). According to the Commission, the prosecutor did not pass the evaluation as he “does not meet the criteria of financial and ethical integrity”.

How does the prosecutor explain holding financial sources for the purchase of properties in Hincesti in 2012

Gheorghe Borș, prosecutor in the PG, was heard as a candidate for the position of member of the PSC during the first round of hearings, which took place at the end of April. The public interview lasted a little over an hour and the Commission members’ questions to the candidate concerned issues related to his financial integrity.

The Pre-Vetting Commission found that in 2012 Gheorghe Borș purchased a 67 square metre apartment, a plot of land and a garage in the town of Hincesti, worth a total of about 189 370 lei. As financial sources for the purchase of these properties, the prosecutor declared savings from his and his wife’s salary, 23 700 lei from the sale of a piece of land, as well as a sum of money he received from his in-laws. The prosecutor confirmed during the hearings that he made these purchases in 2012.

In 2013, Gheorghe Borș, already owning the apartment, took out a loan from a bank in the amount of 160 thousand lei, which allowed him to pay back the money borrowed from his in-laws and to carry out some necessary repairs in the apartment. According to the Commission, between 2007-2012, the prosecutor and his wife had only salary income.

“In 2012 I didn’t have a living space. No bank in Hincesti, where I lived, wanted to give me credit, because I had no assets to pledge. At that time, the wife’s father had some money received as remittances from his daughter in Italy, the wife’s sister, and he sent them to our family for safekeeping, because he was older and did not have the conditions, fearing that they would be stolen. In 2012, we, knowing that there was that amount, decided to get that apartment, and then to prove to the bank that we had an apartment, because I went to all the banks and they told me that apart from having the asset, the money had to be used for that apartment. After I showed the bank that I already owned the flat, they gave me the loan of 160 thousand. Some time passed and many things I don’t really remember, but I think I needed the 160 thousand lei. I don’t know what the euro exchange rate was when I changed it to 160 thousand (…)”, said Gheorghe Borș.

The commission also established that by a decision of the Hincesti City Council of 16 March 2007, the prosecutor received privately owned land of 0.06 hectares in the city of Hincesti to build a house. In 2011, he sold this land and paid the tax related to the capital increase. The prosecutor explained that the legal basis for the granting of this land by the City Council was Article 11 of the Land Code, which at that time provided for the free allocation of land sectors to newly formed families.

Cristina Gladcov has been working in the prosecutor’s office since 22 July 2011, when she was appointed as a prosecutor in the Cimișlia Prosecutor’s Office. Previously, she worked at the Chisinau Municipal Prosecutor’s Office, and since August 2018 she has been a prosecutor in the Anticorruption Prosecutor’s Office. Earlier in May, the Pre-Vetting Commission announced that it had completed its assessment of Cristina Gladcov and that she had failed the integrity assessment.

The prosecutor who declared a Toyota Auris model car for 10 thousand lei

In 2017, six complaints were filed in the name of Cristina Gladcov, in which the applicants challenged the legality of the orders not to prosecute and the closure of criminal proceedings. In three cases, the court upheld the complaints and annulled the orders. The same happened in 2018, when magistrates granted a petitioner’s request for the annulment of the orders of refusal to prosecute and dismissal of the case, returning the case for further review. The orders were not appealed to the higher court.

During the hearings, which lasted about three hours, the prosecutor was asked, among other things, about the declaration and reporting of her husband’s income from the lease of property from 2018 to 2020, about her husband’s ownership of shares in a company.

The Commission found that since 2017, Christine Gladcov’s husband was listed as the founder of an LLC, owning 50% of the company’s shares. The company operates in the construction sector. Cristina Gladcov did not declare that her husband owns shares in this company in her financial statements for 2017-2021. In the prosecutor’s response to the Commission’s questions, she stated that her husband worked in a company that founded a firm and that she could not remember whether he participated in the founding of the company. According to the prosecutor, neither she nor her husband knew about his ownership of shares in that company.

The Pre-Vetting Commission also asked the prosecutor to explain the purchase in 2017 of a Toyota Auris model car, manufactured in 2007, for 10 thousand lei.

Remus Moroz has been a prosecutor in the Prosecutor’s Office of Chisinau municipality since April 26, 2021. Previously, he held the position of chief prosecutor in the Prosecutor’s Office of Hincesti district. Remus Moroz withdrew from the competition for the position of member of the PSC, and the Pre-Vetting Commission concluded that “withdrawal from the competition is equivalent to not passing the evaluation”.

ANI found that the former head of the Hîncești Prosecutor’s Office has unjustified wealth worth 700 thousand lei

“Remus Moroz, prosecutor in the Prosecutor’s Office of the municipality of Chisinau, Buiucani Office, was on the list of candidates submitted by the Superior Council of Prosecutors to the Commission on April 7, 2022, in the version updated on January 13, 2023, for evaluation for the position of member of the Superior Council of Prosecutors. By letter of 19 April 2023 addressed to the Commission, Remus Moroz withdrew from the competition as a candidate for the position of member of the High Council of Prosecutors”, the Pre-Vetting Committee decision of 20 April 2023 states.

During the same period, more precisely, in May 2023, the National Integrity Authority found a substantial difference in the total amount of more than 164 thousand lei between the property acquired and the income obtained by the prosecutor Remus Moroz and his family members during the exercise by him of the function of Head of the Prosecutor’s Office of Hincesti district. In the meantime, the criminal case of illicit enrichment in which Remus Moroz was investigated has been closed.

The reason why Prosecutor Vasile Stoinov did not pass the Pre-Vetting Commission evaluation

Vasile Stoinov has held the position of Deputy Chief Prosecutor of the Prosecutor’s Office for Combating Organized Crime and Special Cases since August 2017. Prior to his appointment to this position, he served as acting Deputy Chief Prosecutor in the Prosecutor’s Office for Combating Organized Crime and Special Cases, South Office.

The Pre-Vetting Commission concluded that Vasile Stoinov did not pass the evaluation because he did not submit a declaration of assets and personal interests for the last five years.

“Art. 9. para. (2) of Law No. 26/2022 does not provide any grounds to justify a late submission. In the Commission’s view, it would be necessary to invoke an extraordinary reason in order to justify late submission, namely circumstances of such a nature that, if not taken into account, would constitute a serious injustice to the candidate. In the message received from the candidate on 1 February 2023, the candidate indicated that he was on sick leave, which appeared to be the reason for missing the deadline, and informed the Commission that he would be submitting the declaration on the same day. No further details or justifications were given as to the reason for the late submission. In the Commission’s view, that reason – without any further details or justification – does not constitute extraordinary circumstances justifying the late submission of the requested declaration. Likewise, all the other 17 candidates for membership of the High Council of Prosecutors, to whom the declaration of assets form was sent for completion by 30 January 2023, managed to meet the deadline. In these circumstances, the candidate’s failure to submit the declaration for 5 years cannot be justified,” the Pre-Vetting Committee decision of 7 February 2023 states.

The prosecutor who tried to take possession of an apartment – a service apartment, to which other persons also had claims, after having received another apartment at a preferential price

Vitalie Codreanu was appointed as a prosecutor in 2011, in the Section for the conduct of criminal prosecutions in the central bodies of the Ministry of Internal Affairs and the Customs Service of the General Prosecutor’s Office. He has been an anti-corruption prosecutor since July 2016.

Codreanu did not pass the ethical and financial integrity assessment. He refused to have the Pre-Vetting Commission’s decision published.

Prosecutor Vitalie Codreanu requested that part of the hearing take place in closed session. One of the subjects he wanted to be heard only in the presence of Commission members was excluded from the hearing, and on the second, concerning the ownership of an apartment, the prosecutor justified his request by the fact that the apartment is the subject of an ongoing dispute.

The Commission drew attention to the fact that Vitalie Codreanu’s request had not been submitted in time, and the reasons given by the anti-corruption prosecutor “did not convince the Commission that the interests of public order, respect for private life or morality would be undermined if the discussion on the ownership of this apartment were to take place in a public hearing”.

According to the law on some measures related to the selection of candidates for membership in the self-administrative bodies of judges and prosecutors, if the Evaluation Commission rejects the candidate’s request to conduct the hearings or part of them in a closed session, he may immediately notify the commission of his withdrawal from the competition, and Vitalie Codreanu said he agreed that the hearing should continue in a public session.

The first subject of the hearing concerned the share of the apartment that the Codreanu family has owned since 2016 and which was received following the request made in 2009 to the Chisinau City Hall to provide the prosecutor with the office living space. Vitalie Codreanu said he learned about the apartment, whose owner died in 1994, from a person he knew but whose name he does not remember. So he went to court and following a court decision in 2014, the City Hall was obliged to provide him with a place to live. He also stated that while he was waiting to take possession of the apartment, after the court case in which he had won and was to be allocated the property, he met with the manager of the block in which the apartment was located, in order to pass on to her a request from the Housing and Communal Directorate to provide information about the people who were living there at the time. The reply she received indicated that the flat was unoccupied, although it later transpired that someone else was renting the flat.

Asked by the Commission whether he had discussed the information he had provided with the block’s administrator, Codreanu denied this, although she is Russian-speaking and the document was written in Romanian. “Taking into consideration that the questioning was in Romanian, from the authority, she probably thought that (…) she could write it and understood what it says. This text was not dictated by anyone,” Codreanu said. The apartment ended up being privatised in the name of the prosecutor’s wife and daughter, although the legislation at the time did not allow the privatisation of official housing. The anti-corruption prosecutor also said he did not know how it was possible, but stressed that he could not be held responsible for the commission’s decision to privatise the housing fund.

The Commission also asked the anti-corruption prosecutor whether he thought it was ethical to ask the local public authorities for a public service apartment, even though he had a contract to buy an apartment at a preferential price for prosecutors since 2008. Vitalie Codreanu claimed that the apartment at a preferential price was “planned” for his sister. Later, in 2013, the apartment was sold to the prosecutor’s sister at a price of about 400 thousand lei, but without payment, the sale and purchase of the apartment being in fact “simulated”, according to Codreanu. This real estate was not included in the declaration of wealth and personal interests for 2012, the prosecutor saying that he understood at the time that it was necessary to include only real estate acquired in that year.

Codreanu was also asked about three vehicles purchased by his father between 2013 and 2015, which were or still are in the possession of the anti-corruption prosecutor, as well as the family’s income, which he said was largely from beekeeping.

“Possibly because of my emotions, I was a bit embarrassed and perhaps did not give the most appropriate answers. Plus the video cameras, which we prosecutors don’t really like, but our work makes it so that they are present and day by day they are more and more present, and we have to correspond with society and the media in this way,” Vitalie Codreanu said at the end of the hearing that lasted over 2 hours.

Three other prosecutors who failed the evaluation

Candidate Anatolie Gîrbu, Deputy Chief Prosecutor of the Ungheni District Prosecutor’s Office, who requested to be evaluated solely on the basis of the material gathered by the Commission, opting not to participate in the hearings in public session, did not pass the evaluation. Gîrbu refused to have the decision published.

Cristina Robu, a candidate for the position of member of the PSC and interim deputy chief prosecutor of the Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office, South Office, did not pass the evaluation following her withdrawal from the competition, according to the Commission’s decision of 11 April.

Aurelian Buzdugan, acting chief prosecutor of the Anenii Noi District Prosecutor’s Office, also withdrew from the competition and thus did not pass the evaluation, according to the Commission’s decision of 20 April, which states that “by e-mail message of 18 April 2023 addressed to the Commission, Aurelian Buzdugan withdrew from the competition”.

The Pre-Vetting Commission is due to announce decisions on eight other candidates for the position of member of the PSC.

The article was developed within 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.