PAS MP calls for hearing of Prosecutor General and Head of Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office after statements from the National Anti-Corruption Centre
After the hearing in the plenary of Parliament on Friday, May 12, of the director of the National Anti-Corruption Centre (NAC), Iulian Rusu, who said that “relations with the Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office and the General Prosecutor’s Office have been unclear lately”, a deputy of the Action and Solidarity Party (PAS) claims that “it would be good to have a discussion in plenary with the Prosecutor General and the head of the Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office”, because “more and more questions would accumulate on the work of the Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office”.
According to Dan Perciun, chairman of the Parliamentary Committee on Social Protection, Health and Family, “when the NAC considers that the National Hotel case is a disgrace and is treated superficially by the Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office – big question marks arise”.
In a press release, following accusations made by the director of the National Anti-Corruption Centre, Iulian Rusu, in the Plenary of the Parliament concerning the NAC’s relations with the Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office and the Prosecutor General’s Office (PG), PG representatives described the statements as “irresponsible, manipulative and incorrect”.
The director of the National Anti-Corruption Centre (NAC), Iulian Rusu, presented the NAC’s activity report for 2022 on Friday, 12 May.
After the presentation of the activity report, being asked about the connections with the Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office, the NAC Director said that “the relations with the Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office and the General Prosecutor’s Office are unclear lately”.
“I want to make an important clarification. There are four basic pillars that provide the final result – the conviction of the person and the execution of the sentence. First of all, there is the investigative part, which is provided by the National Anti-Corruption Centre, and the prosecution part in cases where we directly carry out the prosecution. It is the prosecution part that the prosecutor does, but also the part that has extended jurisdiction when decisions are taken on the pre-trial part of applying repressive or enforcement measures. There are also the courts that make the decision on the guilt or innocence of the person as well as the prison system that enforces sentences. If there is no conclusion between these four pillars, we will not succeed in achieving the results that society as a whole expects (…).
As far as the National Hotel is concerned, I think that the National Hotel case is a disgrace for the whole justice sector and in order for us to rehabilitate, we have involved a huge number of employees to review the situation regarding the National Hotel. Honourable Members, we have found several pieces of evidence and we have several suspicions that crimes were committed from the very beginning, in 2006, when the decision was taken on the privatisation of Moldova-Tur SA. We have presented this information to our fellow prosecutors. Unfortunately, our proposal for an ordinance to initiate criminal cases on several articles was partially repealed. I do not consider this to be a fair approach to the work of the prosecution officers. And this case, as I said, which is a disgrace to the whole justice system, needs to be reviewed and brought to an end. That is why I think it is absolutely essential that the original text of the order to reopen criminal proceedings, which covers several articles of the Criminal Code, should be returned to, and that this case should be examined in detail.
Relations with the Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office and the General Prosecutor’s Office have been unclear lately. They were good for a while, but lately they have really been unclear. I am puzzled why they are unclear. I would like them to continue to be good, especially when we are discussing high-profile cases and when we are proposing investigations into money laundering involving hundreds of millions of lei, where there is no reasonable suspicion. On the other hand, when a lousy doctor is found taking 500 lei for medical services, yes, there is no problem: surveillance cameras and other special investigative measures, and interception of telephone communications. Is this how we use our limited resources? I think we should focus on the most important cases, which affect our society the most (…).”, said the NAC director.
In his presentation, NAC Director Iulian Rusu also referred to the institution’s corruption prevention activities and the process of recovering criminal assets.
According to Iulian Rusu, during 2022, 487 criminal cases were initiated. 234 of them constituted corruption offences, and 105 – offences related to corruption (abuse of power, exceeding the duties of office or illicit enrichment). Criminal cases were also opened for fraud, embezzlement of foreign assets, money laundering and computer forgery.
