Prosecutor asks seven years of imprisonment, in a closed penitentiary, for the judge Gheorghe Popa, stating that “the prosecution were given relevant and sufficient evidences proving unequivocally the guilt of the defendant”. But his lawyer requires his acquitting, relying on the fact that Popa was the victim of a challenge, but also that the evidences do not demonstrate that he alleged the bribery of $ 200 of which he is accused.

Criminal case regarding the suspended judge from Telenesti Court is at its last minute. In the meeting from a week ago, it came to oral presentations, so that, at the next meeting, the parties to come up with additions.

Prosecutor: challenge or lack of offense?

Octavian Iachimovschi, corruption prosecutor who handled the case, spoke first. He asked the conviction of the accused, stating that “Popa committed an offense incriminated with guilt, expressed by direct intent, acknowledging that claim, accept and receive money that are not due to him”. Anticipating the statement of defense, the prosecutor claimed that allegations of “alleged provocation of the defendant to commit passive corruption are baseless and without evidence. The prosecution acknowledges that state bears the burden of demonstrating the absence of a challenge to the commitment of the offense. Also, we point out the unclear position on defense regarding versions considered reliable, and namely: the basic version submitted by defense is that Gheorghe Popa did not commit the crime with which he is charged. Meanwhile, the defense relies on the existence of an alleged provocation from law enforcement to the commitment of this crime which, we reiterate, according to the defense, was not committed by the defendant”, attacked Iachimovschi .

The prosecutor cited a number of samples, which, in his opinion, are incriminating the magistrate, stating that in the criminal case was demonstrated that undercover officers or agents have not been used. At the same time, he asked the court to critically appraise the witness’s statements Spanachi Tamara, clerk of Popa, because she indicated the exact events related to file “even if from the events in question until the hearing of the witness passed a long time”. Iachimovschi also stated that he recognized that came to trial with the judge and thus was induced by defendant a specific position, biased …

Three contradictory statements

Octavian Iachimovschi asked that court assess critically as well the statements of Gheorghe Popa. The prosecution pointed out that “the defendant attempted to mislead the prosecutor at the prosecution stage by giving statements that are not true, stating that on 11^th of October 2013, during the discussion with Andrei Durnea held in his office service, came out of the office, leaving Durnea alone for a period of time. This fact is contradicted by videos … “. The prosecutor referred also to the judge statements for ZdG, stating that he “tried to mislead the public as well, by communicating he actually hid the money in “Civil Procedure Code” because he got scared, statements that he denied later in court and are controlled by the audio- video recordings attached to this criminal case”.

At the same time, the prosecution noted that, being heard as defendant, Gheorghe Popa has submitted a new version, that “Andrei Durnea would have touched “Civil Procedure Code” in which were found the money claimed, and it would have fallen down. At the same time, in the code would have been found photographs and documents on which Durnea, at the request of the defendant, would have picked up and would have put ” in the book “, ie the ” Code of Civil Procedure”. The indictment states that the defendant’s statements are not true and this is proved by witness’s statements Andrei Durnea and confirmed by other convincing evidences, including audio-video recordings attached to the file. Assuming defendant to raise the Code of Civil Procedure which had fallen off the table, he would have had to bend, ie this would be visible in the video. As noted, this did not happen …” said Iachimovschi. So, he asked the conviction of Gheorghe Popa to seven years imprisonment in the closed penitentiary, a fine of two thousand u. c. (40 thousand lei), with deprivation of the right to hold public positions within the judiciary and law enforcement agencies for a period of five years. To mention that the article of the Criminal Code incriminated to Popa provides imprisonment from 7 to 15 years. So that, the prosecutor asked for magistrate the minimum penalty provided by law.

Defense: the claiming did not happen

In turn, Vasile Nicoara, lawyer of Gheorghe Popa, requested his acquittal, trying to convince the judge that he was the target of a challenge. “In relation to this case, allow me to say that, in order to be able to report some successes in relation to Summit in Vilnius, the state authorities have caused certain events, so that, ultimately, in the court got one of first dossiers ” of corruption “, ” bribery ” , which features a judge. Thus, this criminal case is a pilot one. On the solution adopted in this case depends not only the fate of a man, but how will be implemented the state policy in various areas: fighting corruption in the legal system, ensuring the independence of the judiciary, ensuring the right to a fair trial .. “, pointed, at first, defender. He first made reference to the charge of “claims ” brought to judge, who, according to the data from file, was held on the 9^th and 10^th of October 2013, noting that the charge ” was attempted to be proven in court only by the statements of two witnesses: Andrei Durnea and Roman Busovschi .

Judge’s lawyer made ​reference several times to confusing and contradictory statements of the two witnesses, previously exposed by ZdG: “During the reports, witness  ( Durnea , no) did not indicate that the defendant had claimed from him goods or funds. The witness did not report that even when answered the prosecutor’s questions. The same witness did not state that the defendant would have claimed ” the payment ” nor when answered the lawyer’s questions”, ascertained Nicoara. “Busovschi, who denounced the alleged offense, did not invoke to prosecution that the defendant would have claimed ” payment ” / goods or funds”, said the lawyer, adding that “the indictment insists that the defendant ” claimed ” from Roman Busovschi through Andrei Durnea. From the statements given by Busovschi in court, as a witness, under oath, do not result that the defendant would have claimed from him ” payment” / goods or funds”.

The statements of prosecution witnesses, in the defense of Judge

At the same time, the defender reminded about the statement of Busovschi, who said in court that “ I complained to the NAC to be determined who demanded money, who should have retained them, the judge or lawyer. I wanted to see who will get the money: the judge or lawyer”, but also that in which he stated that “I had no intention of giving lawyer 200 dollars. I had no reason… I consider that the defendant has not extorted funds from me”. Nicoara thinks that, normally, after the denunciation of Busovschi, authorities had to first hear him, in order to ascertain who from whom demanded money, and then perform other actions. “If the prosecution would have not taken the actions of incitement / provocation, Busovschi and Durnea would have not taken any action that would have allowed the act of defendant to be classified under Art. 324 of the Criminal Code”, said the lawyer.

He asked the court to pay attention to the fact that, being heard, Roman Busovschi said that he did not collaborate previously with NAC, but at the court had been presented more evidences, based on documents, that demonstrate that Busovschi “is” denouncer by profession ‘/’ challenger”. “At the same time, Nicoara said that, “regarding witness Andrei Durnea, can not be overlooked that him, grossly, aware and defiantly, refused in court to answer more questions, essential for solving the case”. The lawyer reminded that “a person can not be convicted of accepting and receiving funds submitted under Art .135 Code of Criminal Procedure, and transmission of control in conditions other than those prescribed by law is inadmissible”. In defense of his client, Nicoara referred to several judgments of the ECHR targeting challenge, asking the court to cancel all the evidences of indictment and also acquittal of defendant.

Victor Mosneag