The Pre-Vetting Commission announced on Wednesday, July 12, the conclusion of the evaluation of the group of candidates for membership in the Supreme Prosecutors’ Council (SPC). Thus, seven prosecutors who passed the evaluation will fight at the General Assembly of Prosecutors for the five seats reserved for representatives of the prosecution. Three candidates will fight for the position of member from the Prosecutor General’s Office (PG), and the other four candidates – for four seats from the territorial and specialised prosecutors’ offices.

According to the new legislation, the SCP will be composed of 10 members and the president of the SCM, the minister of justice and the ombudsman will no longer be members of the council. Four members of the SCP are elected by competition from civil society, as follows: one – by the President of the Republic, one – by the Parliament, one – by the Government and one – by the Academy of Sciences of Moldova. Only one candidate from civil society entered the competition and passed the financial and ethical integrity assessment.

Eighteen candidates have registered for the competition for membership of the main self-governing body of prosecutors – the SCP. They underwent an extraordinary evaluation and following the checks, the Pre-Vetting Commission issued eight decisions to promote and ten decisions not to promote the integrity evaluation. Of the ten non-promotion decisions, four related to situations of withdrawal from the competition or non-submission of the five-year declaration within the deadline, and six candidates did not promote following the full assessment process.

Ziarul de Gardă has analysed the decisions of the Pre-Vetting Commission, issued in respect of the eight candidates for the position of member of the SCP who passed the assessment and presents the most relevant information.

Dumitru Obadă has been working in the prosecutor’s office since 2011 and is currently serving as a government agent of Moldova before the ECtHR. Dumitru Obadă was heard by the Pre-Vetting Committee on 21 April 2023, and in early May, the Pre-Vetting Committee announced that the prosecutor passed the evaluation, meeting “the criteria of ethical and financial integrity”.

How the prosecutor explains not declaring rent expenses for his wife’s work

During the hearings, the candidate for SCP member was asked about a financial and ethical issue – the fact that he did not declare 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 2021, he declared rent 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 Pre-Vetting Commission during rounds of written questions and during the 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 State Tax Service (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 the actual rent costs from the accountant when he filed his statement.

“The Commission did not find serious doubts (Art. 13 para. (5) of Law 26/2022) regarding the candidate’s compliance with the criterion of ethical integrity provided for in Art. 8 para. (2) lit. (c) and the financial integrity criterion under Art. 8 para. (4)(a) and (4)(b). (5) lit. b) of Law no. 26/2022, regarding the amounts declared in his declaration for the last 5 years as rent expenses for his wife’s notary’s office, as the candidate’s erroneous estimates – presented with appropriate clarification due to time constraints – appear to have been unintentional, were promptly explained, were not made for any improper purpose and, therefore, the Commission’s concerns were fully dismissed by the candidate (…)”, claim the Commission representatives.

Iuri Lealin has been working in the prosecution bodies since 2009. He is currently a prosecutor in the Representation Section in non-criminal proceedings and implementation of the ECHR within the Judicial Department of the Prosecutor General’s Office (PG). He worked as a prosecutor at the Prosecutor’s Office of Chisinau Municipality, Ciocana office, from 2012 to 2016. The candidate for the position of member of the SCP was heard by the Pre-Vetting Commission at the end of April. On 30 June 2023, the Pre-Vetting Commission announced that it had completed its assessment of Iuri Lealin, stating that he “meets the integrity criteria and passes the assessment”.

Prosecutor with donations worth 780 thousand lei

During the hearing, the candidate was asked about the following financial and ethical issues – the purchase of an apartment in 2014 and its sale in 2017, the purchase of a house in 2017, the sources of funds for this purchase and the undervalued price of a car.

According to the Pre-Vetting Committee, on 20 June 2014, the prosecutor purchased a 31.1 square metre apartment in Chisinau municipality. The contract price was 165 488 lei (about 8 883 euros), which was identical to the cadastral value of the apartment. Yuri Lealin informed the Commission that when he purchased this apartment, the seller wanted the cadastral value to be indicated in the contract, not the actual price paid – as, according to the candidate, was the custom at the time.

“Although the candidate was unable to produce a copy of the 2014 purchase contract, he was able to produce a copy of a document, signed by the seller of the apartment, which indicated that the seller had received from the candidate a total amount of 27,000 euros. On 8 June 2017, the candidate and his wife sold the apartment for the same contract price/cadastre value of 165,488 lei indicated in the 2014 purchase contract. This was the amount that the candidate also indicated in his annual return for 2017 as income from the sale of the apartment (…). Both in his answers to written questions and to those asked during the hearing, the candidate claimed that there was no obligation to pay such a tax, as there was no difference between the actual purchase price in 2014 and the actual sale price in 2017 (…),” the Pre-Vetting Commission decision, issued on 9 June 2023, reads.

At the same time, according to the Commission, on July 10, 2017, Iuri Lealin and his wife bought a 0.0109 ha plot of land and a house of 83.8 square meters in Stăuceni commune, Chisinau municipality. The house was exposed for sale with the price of 55 thousand euros. After negotiations, the agreed price was 980 thousand lei (about 47,047 euros). Although the price seemed to be in line with the market value for comparable properties in that area in 2017, it was lower than the cadastral value of 37 448 lei for the land and 1 521 070 lei for the house. Asked by the Commission about this, the candidate explained that he had asked the notary about the discrepancy between the market value and the cadastral value and that the notary had mentioned that this discrepancy was common for properties in the suburbs of Chisinau. The prosecutor also said that in his statement for 2018 and later, he included the actual price paid and not the cadastral value.

Asked at the hearing why he included the cadastral value of the apartment sold in June 2017 in the sales contract, but included the real price of the house bought in July 2017 in the purchase contract, he explained that in the past, state authorities had valued properties in the country at very low values, without revaluation for years.

As for the donations received on the occasion of the wedding in 2013 – 360 thousand lei and the marriage in 2016 – 420 thousand lei, the prosecutor said that these were mostly made by his mother – about 200 thousand lei and his in-laws – about 400 thousand lei.

Commission members also found that on 1 November 2018, the candidate purchased a Lexus RX400H car. The contract price of the car was 50 thousand lei (about 2 520 euros). This car was imported from Switzerland in March 2018 and the value established by the Customs Service was 200 thousand lei, not including import duties.

“The candidate informed the Commission that a friend of his imported the car in March 2018. As the candidate did not have sufficient means at that time, he bought the car later that year in November. The candidate provided a copy of the purchase contract (…). The candidate provided detailed information in his answers to written questions and those asked during the hearing. He provided a copy of the contract of sale, informed the Commission in detail about where he found this car on specialised websites for cars that can be imported from Switzerland, explained that the price was lower than estimated by the Customs Service due to the defects the car had and provided photographs of the car before and after the repairs, proving the repairs that had been carried out,” the Commission decision reads.

Elena Rosior has worked in the prosecution service since August 1999. On 28 June 2022, she was appointed Deputy Chief Prosecutor of the Anenii Noi District Prosecutor’s Office for a five-year term, a position she still holds today. The Pre-Vetting Committee announced in mid-May the hearing of Elena Rosior, a candidate for the post of SCP member. On 30 June 2023, the Commission informed that the prosecutor “meets the integrity criteria and passes the evaluation”.

How the prosecutor explains the purchase of two cars worth a total of 7000 lei

During the hearings, the candidate for member of the SCP was asked by members of the Pre-Vetting Commission about the sources of funds for bank deposits declared in 2009-2016 and about the declaration of the value of two cars.

According to the Commission, the prosecutor declared 10 deposit accounts and five savings accounts in her declarations of assets and personal interests between 2009 and 2016. All the accounts declared by the prosecutor cumulatively contained 10 thousand dollars, 300 thousand lei and 12 thousand euros, totalling approximately 34 500 euros. Asked about the source of the funds for these deposits, in written communication with the Commission and during the hearings, the prosecutor indicated as a source the money earned by her husband in Greece.

“In her written communication with the Commission, the candidate explained that her husband had worked in Greece from 1997-1999 and 2001-2003. She further explained that he worked without legal papers in Greece from autumn 1997 to 1 September 1999. The applicant’s husband returned to Greece in June 2001 in order to obtain documents allowing him to work legally in Greece. The husband received the papers in September 2001. The candidate also provided two certificates from a person in Greece, named D. G., dated 24 November 2022, stating that the candidate’s husband worked for the construction company owned by D. G. from 25 October 1997 to 30 August 1999 and had a salary of 276,000 Greek drachmas per month (estimated 830 euros x 22 months = 18. 260) and that the applicant’s husband also worked in this company from 28 June 2001 to 26 December 2003 and had a salary of 1,100 euros per month (30 months x 1,100 euros = 33,000 euros). According to the two certificates, the applicant’s husband had a total income of 51,260 euros during the two periods of his stay in Greece,” the Pre-Vetting Committee decision states.

At the same time, according to the Pre-Vetting Commission, in the prosecutor’s annual declaration for 2014, she indicated a Dacia Logan car manufactured in 2008, owned by her husband, which was purchased in 2014 for 2,000 lei (about 100 euros).

“The candidate’s husband stated that the director of the company “S.C.” S.R.L., where the husband worked until 2020, offered him the car to use for business purposes from 2009 to 2013, on the basis of a verbal agreement, with the intention of selling it to the candidate’s husband at a preferential price of 2,000 lei, given its technical condition. The candidate’s husband used the car from 2009 to 2013 and then bought it at a preferential price of 2 000 lei, in view of the “deplorable condition of the car” at the time of the sale contract, according to the candidate’s husband’s description. The candidate presented the 2014 sale-purchase contract, which indicated a price of 2 000 lei for the car. The candidate did not provide documents confirming the technical condition of the car. The candidate also submitted a statement from the former owner of the car, confirming the statement of the candidate’s husband (…),” the document states.

Also, in her annual declaration for 2016, the prosecutor declared another Dacia Logan car manufactured in 2007, owned by her husband and purchased in 2015. She explained that the value of the car was 5,000 lei (about 220 euros).

“The candidate provided the Commission with another statement from her husband that ‘the price of the car corresponded to its technical condition’. The applicant also provided the Commission with an estimate of the repairs needed to the Dacia Logan 2, indicating its poor technical condition. According to this document, the repairs would have cost 16,680 lei (…). During the hearings, the candidate explained that the technical condition of the Dacia Logan 2 was poor, a fact known by her husband from the beginning, but the price was so attractive that they decided to buy it mainly for spare parts, in order to merge the two cars (Dacia Logan 1 and Dacia Logan 2), thus obtaining a better quality car (…). The Commission questioned the real value of the two cars bought by the candidate’s husband and the candidate’s compliance with both the legal regime for the declaration of assets and personal interests and the tax regime. In her written communication and during the hearings, the candidate explained in detail how both cars were purchased (…)”, according to the Pre-Vetting Committee’s decision.

Olesea Vîrlan has been acting Deputy Chief Prosecutor of the Ialoveni District Prosecutor’s Office since 22 September 2022. Previously, she worked in the Rezina District Prosecutor’s Office. The Pre-Vetting Committee announced on 25 May that Olesea Vîrlan, a candidate for the position of member of the SCP, was heard. On 30 June 2023, the Commission representatives informed that the prosecutor “meets the integrity criteria and passes the evaluation”.

The prosecutor who did not indicate in her annual statements her capacity as guarantor for a loan of 300 thousand lei

During the public hearing, the prosecutor was asked about the non-declaration of her husband’s income and transfers to him in the annual statements for 2012-2015, the non-declaration of seven agricultural lands in the annual statement for 2018, the erroneous declaration of rights to the Toyota Aygo car and the non-declaration of its value for three years, as well as the failure to indicate in the annual statements her capacity as guarantor for a loan of 300 thousand lei.

In response to the Commission’s questions about discrepancies between income and expenses in certain years, the prosecutor stated that some expenses were covered by the minimal income of her ex-husband, to whom she was still married at the time and who worked regularly as a day labourer in the construction industry. She was married to him from 2011 until 2017.

According to the Pre-Vetting Commission, between 2014 and 2016, prosecutor Olesea Vîrlan inherited 12 plots of agricultural land located in Rezina district. She indicated the land properly in her annual returns for 2014-2017, but in her annual return for 2018, the prosecutor indicated only five of the 12 plots of land. In her annual return for 2019, Olesea Vîrlan indicated an income of 70 thousand lei from “selling the land”. All 12 plots of land were sold on 25 April 2019 for 71,060 lei.

“In her written communication with the Commission and during the hearing, the candidate stated that the omission to declare the land plots in her annual declaration for 2018 was probably a mechanical error, not an intentional one, and that she only realised this after the Commission’s questions on this matter,” the decision added.

On 12 August 2017, Olesea Vîrlan was empowered by notarial power of attorney to hold, use and transfer ownership of a Toyota Aygo car.

“In her annual returns for 2017-2020, the candidate declared rights of possession and use of the Toyota Aygo car and indicated the value of the car as 0 lei. On 19 July 2018, the candidate entered into a sale and purchase agreement, according to which the owner of the car, represented by the candidate, sold the Toyota Aygo car to the candidate for 8,000 lei. As of her annual return for 2021, the candidate indicated her ownership of the car and its value of 60,000 lei. In her written communication with the Commission, the candidate explained that the actual price paid for the car was 60,000 lei. In response to written questions and at the hearing, the candidate stated that she had not declared the ownership of the car in her annual declarations for 2018-2020 submitted to the National Integrity Authority (“ANI”), “because the declarations were taken from previous years and we did not draw attention to the item “mode of acquisition” that was to be changed,” Commission representatives state.

As for the fact that she did not indicate in her annual declarations her capacity as guarantor for a loan of 300 thousand lei, the prosecutor explained that she did not realise that she had to declare her capacity as guarantor and that she understood that she had made this omission only after she had been questioned by the Commission about this aspect.

“The Commission appreciates that during the assessment the candidate provided detailed information and was cooperative. However, the Commission cannot ignore the fact that the applicant participated in the conclusion of a contract of sale for a car, knowing that the price quoted was not the correct one and that it was considerably lower than the price actually agreed between the parties. The candidate did not indicate the wrong price in order to obtain some benefit, but at the insistence of the seller, but by participating in such an arrangement she may have helped the seller of the car to avoid paying tax on a possible capital gain from its sale (…),” the document says.

Three disciplinary proceedings and failure to submit two annual declarations of assets and personal interests

Mariana Cherpec was appointed in 2010 as a prosecutor at the Prosecutor’s Office of the Centre sector, Chisinau municipality. From July 2019 to February 2023 she worked as a prosecutor responsible for media communication in the General Prosecutor’s Office. Currently, she is a prosecutor in the Prosecutor’s Office of the municipality of Chisinau, main office.

On 21 June 2022, the Commission sent the candidate an ethical integrity questionnaire, which was to be completed voluntarily and returned to the Commission by 5 July 2022. The candidate did not return the completed questionnaire to the Commission.

One of the topics addressed by the Commission during the hearings and in the written questionnaire was three disciplinary proceedings brought against the candidate between 2014-2016, which resulted in sanctions in the form of one warning and two reprimands.

“The existence of three decisions disciplining the candidate, in principle, constitutes grounds for serious doubts as to whether the requirements of Article 8 of Law No 26/2022, in particular the criterion of ethical integrity, have been met, in accordance with Article 8 para. (2) of the said law. (…) The candidate has confirmed that delays have occurred in a number of cases and that the deadlines laid down by law have sometimes not been respected. The candidate provided extensive explanations on the reasons for the delays and the resulting disciplinary procedures (…) The Commission has taken into account all the facts and arguments presented. The detailed information submitted about the high caseload, the uneven distribution of work resulting in an even higher workload for the candidate and the difficult working environment provide reasonable explanations for these omissions. The lack of an effective IT tool to track progress in case management further complicated her work. And the fact that since 2016 she has not been targeted in other disciplinary proceedings, with the candidate demonstrating high performance at another prosecution service under different leadership, leads the Commission to conclude that the candidate has sufficiently mitigated the concerns the Commission had,” the decision states.

During the hearings, the prosecutor was also questioned by Commission members about the failure to file annual returns for 2010 and 2011.

“The Commission noted that the candidate’s initial explanation that the obligation to file annual statements only applied to her as a non-executive prosecutor from 2012 was an interpretation of the law. (…) In the subsequent written communication and during the public hearings, the candidate admitted that this obligation also applied to her for the years 2010 and 2011,” the Pre-Vetting Committee decision states.

Cherpec was heard by the Pre-Vetting Committee on 25 April, and according to the decision of 8 June, the Committee decided that she meets the criteria of ethical and financial integrity and thus passes the assessment.

The actual price compared to the contract price for the real estate purchased in 2017, the purchase of two cars and the right of use of another car

Aliona Nesterov started her career in 2011 at the Prosecutor’s Office of the Ciocana sector of Chisinau municipality. From 2015 to 2017, the prosecutor was on childcare leave. From 2016 to 2020, the candidate held the position of prosecutor in the Prosecutor’s Office of the municipality of Chisinau. Chisinau. In September 2022, Aliona Nesterov was appointed interim deputy chief prosecutor of the Anticorruption Prosecutor’s Office (PA), and since January 2023 she has been acting deputy chief prosecutor.

On November 16, 2017, Aliona Nesterov purchased a 49.8 square meter apartment in mun. Chisinau. The price mentioned in the contract was 279 853 lei (estimated 13 441 euros), which was the same as the cadastral value. The applicant informed the Commission that the actual price was approximately 31 thousand euros (about 627 130 lei). The apartment was purchased for the candidate’s mother with her money, but was registered in the name of the prosecutor because her mother was not in the country. According to Aliona Nesterov, the use of the cadastral value in the sale-purchase contract was a precondition of the seller. Since 2017, the candidate has declared the contract price in all her annual returns.

“On the basis of the information provided by the applicant, the Commission has no doubt as to the source of the applicant’s mother’s funds for the purchase of the apartment. The Commission notes that according to the relevant provisions of Law No. 133/2016, in force as of 29 October 2021, the candidate should have declared the actual value, and not the contractual value of the apartment. However, with the amendment of this law, which entered into force on 6 May 2022, the real value should be declared only in relation to real estate purchased since 2018, i.e. after the date on which the candidate purchased the apartment in November 2017. Therefore, the Commission has no doubt about the applicant’s statements regarding the apartment in her annual returns from the time of the purchase of the apartment in 2017. Although the Commission considers that it is unethical to accept the inclusion of a price in the contract for the sale-purchase of the apartment when the candidate knew that this price was not the correct one, an assessment which the candidate herself acknowledges during the hearings, the Commission concludes that, according to the specifics of the circumstances of the case, this does not constitute a non-compliance with the criterion of ethical integrity,” the Commission notes in the reasoning of the decision.

Another subject questioned by the Commission was the purchase of two cars, the right of use of another car and the issues of the value and source of funds for one of the cars.

In 2019, Alona Nesterov’s husband purchased the Toyota Auris car (year of manufacture 2011) for a declared price of 50 thousand lei (2 541 euro). This price is lower than the selling price for such cars currently listed in 2023 on a sales website. According to the applicant, the contract price was lower because the car required considerable repairs, including battery replacement, as it is a hybrid car. In her 2019-2021 statements, the applicant stated the contract price of the car. In his annual return for 2022, following the amendment of Law No. 133/2016 on the declaration of wealth and personal interests, Nesterov declared the value of the car based on the purchase price, adding the repair costs.

“The Commission notes that the obligation to declare the actual value and not the contract value was already in place from 2021, but the Commission considers this to be a technical breach of its obligations, which is not a non-compliance with the ethical integrity criterion. Based on the information provided by the applicant, the Commission believes that the applicant has mitigated the Commission’s concerns regarding the purchase of the automobile and the manner in which the applicant disclosed the ownership and value of the automobile in her annual statements,” the Commission indicates.

The prosecutor was on child care leave from January 2015 through November 2017 and filed her 2015-2017 returns in early 2018.

“In this return and in her 2018 and 2019 returns, the candidate did not declare her husband’s right of use of the Mitsubishi Lancer car belonging to her father-in-law. The candidate admitted this omission and agreed that it was her obligation to declare the right of use of this car in these three annual declarations. The candidate declared the right of use of the Toyota Prius, purchased by her father-in-law in 2019, in all her 2019 annual returns, but declared the value of the car to be 0 lei. (…) The Commission considers that these are omissions of a more technical nature, that they do not demonstrate any intention to conceal a financial benefit and do not represent a serious doubt. Although the Commission has doubts as to the veracity of the purchase price of the Toyota Prius, this transaction was concluded by her father-in-law, the candidate was not involved, she and her husband did not contribute financially to the purchase of the car and thus would not be considered de facto owners”, the Pre-Vetting Committee members conclude.

The Acting Deputy Prosecutor General attended the hearings in open session of the Commission on 27 April. According to the decision of 12 June, the Commission decided that she meets the criteria of ethical and financial integrity and thus passes the evaluation.

Difference between income and expenditure in 2021 and non-declaration of two bank accounts in the 2020 annual return

Eduard Panea was appointed in October 2007 as a prosecutor in the Cantemir District Prosecutor’s Office. Between 2013 and 2016, he served as deputy prosecutor of the Cantemir district. Between 2016 and 2021, Panea served as a prosecutor in the Anticorruption Prosecutor’s Office. Since May 2021, he has been serving as chief prosecutor of the Leova District Prosecutor’s Office.

According to the information gathered by the Commission during the evaluation, in 2021, Eduard Panea’s family expenses were about 209 thousand lei higher than his income. During the hearing in the meeting, the candidate was asked about this discrepancy.

“The candidate has engaged in significant dialogue with the Commission regarding his family’s income and expenses in 2021, the only year the Commission had any doubts about. Initial calculations of income and expenses were based on the amounts declared by the candidate in his annual statement of assets and personal interests for 2021. However, two bank accounts that had not been declared by the candidate, some allowances that had not been declared or that had been declared in 2020 were not included. Also, the bank account balances that the candidate had declared were the account balances as at March 2022, when the candidate filed the annual return for 2021. These amounts needed to be corrected to reflect balances as of December 31, 2021. All adjustments were made on the basis of supporting documents, except for undeclared cash that the candidate had available at the beginning of 2021 (…) Taking into account the information on adjusted income and expenditure available to the Commission, the candidate’s family’s expenditure does not appear to have exceeded her income in 2021,” the decision states.

Panea also explained the non-declaration of two bank accounts in the 2020 annual declaration, the balances of which exceeded 15 average monthly salaries per economy. The two bank accounts that were not declared by Eduard Panea in his annual declaration for 2020 had a cumulative balance of almost 190 thousand lei, which exceeded the amount of 15 average salaries on the economy. By law, the candidate had to declare those accounts.

“In this case, the cumulative balance of the accounts was 189 897 lei. One of the accounts was a salary account, and the other – for allowances. Given the amounts and documented sources of payments to these accounts, the activity on the accounts did not raise any suspicions. Given the type of accounts, the absence of suspicious or unexplained transactions, and the fact that the money in these accounts was declared as income in the candidate’s 2020 annual return, the Commission finds that there was no intent or motive to hide or not declare these bank accounts, and the candidate’s failure to do so was apparently due to a failure to understand the requirements of the law,” the Commission concluded.

The third topic the Head of the Leova District Prosecutor’s Office was asked about was the disciplinary proceedings against him regarding alleged ethical violations that consisted of prevarication. In 2017, when the candidate was working in the Cantemir District Prosecutor’s Office, the Disciplinary Board adopted the decision by which Eduard Panea was given the disciplinary sanction “reprimand”. Following a challenge to the decision, the SCP adopted a decision changing the disciplinary sanction from “reprimand” to “warning”.

“The delays in these cases were not all of long duration and the existing circumstances constituted a significant mitigating context. The fact that the candidate was held accountable for these prevarications, while the same allegations in at least two of the same cases against the Chief Prosecutor were dismissed because no disciplinary violation was committed, was difficult to accept. In addition to assessing the facts of the cases, the Commission also took into account the fact that the sanction of a warning was imposed six years ago, in 2017, and since then, according to the candidate – neither his superiors nor anyone else has raised any concerns about the late consideration of the cases assigned to him. Nor is the Commission aware of any new disciplinary proceedings against the candidate,” the Pre-Vetting Committee’s reasoning states.

Eduard Panea’s assessment also addressed several issues related to the Honda CRV, including who the true owner of the car was, whether import duties should have been paid to customs when the car re-entered the country on October 5, 2019, and whether the value of the car was undervalued in the candidate’s 2018-2021 annual returns.

“Because the automobile was intended for the next of kin from the outset, was owned and used continuously by that relative, and was not claimed by the candidate or his wife after the death of the next of kin, any doubts as to the beneficial ownership of the automobile were removed. Since the close relative, as the owner of the car, was entitled to an exemption from payment of import duties under a special procedure and was the de jure and de facto owner of the car, any concerns about evasion of payment of import duties were also removed. Since the car was purchased for the close relative and was under the control of that relative from the time the car first entered the country, the delay in completing customs registration can be attributed primarily to that relative, even though the applicant’s wife was still technically the legal owner of the car. While prosecutors should comply with and act in accordance with the law, any violation in this case was technically minor and cannot be attributed directly or entirely to the candidate. In the Commission’s view, this was not significant enough to raise serious doubts about the candidate’s ethical integrity,” the Commission members note.

The Head of the Leova District Prosecutor’s Office was heard on 26 May, and the Commission sent him a written question after the hearings, which included five sub-questions and a request for additional documents, “in order to elucidate some issues that emerged during the assessment”. According to the 21 June decision, the Commission decided that Eduard Panea meets the criteria of ethical and financial integrity and thus passes the assessment.

The funds for donations and transfers of more than €115 000 from the candidate’s 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 Sociohumanistic Sciences of the University of the Academy of Sciences and Project Manager of the Scientific Research Laboratory of the State University of Moldova.

According to the decision, the Commission had no serious doubts about the candidate’s ethical integrity. Rodica Ciobanu was asked during the hearings about the source of funds for donations and transfers from her mother-in-law to her husband (2010-2011, 2016-2021).

“Between 2010-2011 and 2016-2021, the candidate’s mother-in-law transferred €115,715 (€42,500 in cash and €73,215 via bank transfers) to her son – the candidate’s husband. Of this amount, 82 715 euros were for investments in the holiday home, where the candidate’s family lives and also where the mother-in-law will live upon her return from abroad (where she has been residing and working since 2002) (…) The candidate provided a certificate issued by the Social Insurance Service of the European status in which the candidate’s mother-in-law worked, indicating that in the period 2002-2011, she declared a total gross income of 47 420 euros and in the period 2012-2020, a total gross income of 112 636 euros. Thus, the official registered income of the candidate’s mother-in-law in the period 2002-2011 exceeded the amount of money transferred by her in the period 2010-2011 by 4 920 euros. The Commission noted that the income obtained and declared by her mother-in-law during the years 2012-2020 (112 636 euros) was significantly higher than the amount of financial means transferred by the candidate’s mother-in-law during the years 2016-2021 (73 215 euros). The candidate also provided evidence that her mother-in-law started receiving her pension in the Republic of Moldova in 2006 and her European pension in 2020. In the written submission and during the hearings, the applicant stated that her mother-in-law covered her living costs abroad with additional income received as remuneration for additional work, in addition to the assistance provided by her employers in the form of accommodation and by covering other living costs. Although during the period 2002-2011 the applicant’s mother-in-law was left with fairly insignificant financial sources of income, the Commission took into account that the amount transferred was still less than her officially declared income and that it was credible that her employers provided her with accommodation and some daily living costs in the context of the nature of her work. Thus, the applicant was able to demonstrate that her mother-in-law had sufficient income to make donations/transfers amounting to €115 715 in the years 2010-2021 and also to cover her living costs in one of the European countries.

In conclusion, the Commission found that the applicant’s explanations, both in writing and at the hearings, proved her mother-in-law’s ability to make transfers of €115,715 during the period 2010-2021. Due to the consistent and sufficient explanations and evidence presented, the Commission’s doubts as to the source of the candidate’s mother-in-law’s funds have been mitigated by the candidate,” the Commission members conclude.

In the decision issued on 5 June, the Commission noted that it had no serious doubts about the ethical integrity of Rodica Ciobanu, who was heard on 25 May.

The article was prepared 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.