October 9th, 2018
ABOUT THE CORRUPTION IN ROMANIA, WHICH DESTROYS BUSINESSES AND LIVES
CHAPTER I – Personal considerations on the management of state institutions by intelligence officers and politicians.
Result: failure to comply with the property right, a right guaranteed by Art. 44 of the Constitution of Romania, and established by Art. 17 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, in the situations where it is contrary to the personal interest of those who are part of powerful and occult groups of influence and pressure.
The undersigned Nicolae Cristinel Olaneanu, European Citizen, I have drafted this document, which highlights all the evidence in history and shall present in real time all the information and documents issued to and by various public institutions, in order to inform you on the incapacity and inability of the Romanian State, a Member of the European Union, to fulfil its obligations and ensure the application of the provisions of the Constitution of Romania and of the European Law, equally to all its citizens, due to corruption, interventions in the activity of state’s institutions, of some intelligence officers, officials of embassies in Bucharest and individuals with political or management positions in some state institutions or authorities, in cases of private interest wherein enormous profits are registered, resulted from state fraud, fictional economic operations or which are prohibited by the law.
The interventions of intelligence officers and politicians in the activity of state institutions creates the premise and the possibility of preventing the identification and establishment of frauds and of individuals who violate the Law, and the Right to property of the injured individuals, but also that of the state, remains only a promise written in the Constitution of Romania and in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. In fact, the interventions specified are deeds of protection and are determined by the personal interests of officers and politicians. In these cases, these interventions are manifested in a generalised manner, in all state institutions in a concerted and directed manner, to the detriment of national security, business environment, life environment and legitimate interests and rights of ordinary citizens, for a long period of time, with the consequence of non-observance of the property right and prejudice of the private patrimony, but also of the state budget.
In relation to the PRACTICES of obscure guidance of the institutions in Romania, a country that is member of the European Union, from the perspective and information presented in the document, the following legitimate questions are required:
- do we really need the CONSTITUTION, LAWS and EUROPEAN LAW as long as the provisions specified therein are not complied with, and the established rights are not met because there are hidden agreements, protocols between the Romanian Intelligence Service (SRI – Serviciul Român de Informații) and the Competition Council, the National Anticorruption Directorate, Courts of Justice, etc., which allow the intervention to the state institutions in order to obtain the desired result, depending on their private interest and of some companies, with foreign or Romanian capital that violate the Law?
- do we really still need institutions, prosecutors’ offices, the National Anticorruption Directorate, Courts of Justice, the Competition Council, National Agency for Fiscal Administration, the Superior Council of Magistracy, etc. and it would not be sufficient to limit ourselves only to one universal institution, respectively the ROMANIAN INTELLIGENCE SERVICE (SRI – SERVICIUL ROMAN DE INFORMATII) as long as SRI has officers at sight or under cover, promoted definitively or on delegation, partners, collaborators, informers in all other state institutions?
- why is it that we still need prosecutors and judges and why are the decisions made by politicians, influent people in the country and abroad and the Romanian Intelligence Service officers not submitted directly to the judicial bodies, given the fact the judicial institutions receive precise indications on the decisions to be taken in the fiels, as well as precise orders on the admission or rejection of the requests for evidence, the disappearance of evidence that were in the file?
- if so far we have have been protected by bullet and bomb attacks, is it not so that people living in Romania are subject to a continuous attack to life safety and quality, to a climate of decent living in Romania through interventions within the state institutions of some officers and politicians for directing the money into certain pockets, to the detriment of those who it rightfully belongs to?
- is it not so that the contest-free promotion of some individuals supported by the officers of the Services or even the promotion of some officers of the Services in executive and management positions at the Competition Council, Constitutional Court, National Agency for Fiscal Administration, Superior Council of Magistracy, the National Anticorruption Directorate, prosecutors’ offices, courts of justice, National Agency for Integrity, at the Office for Prevention and Fight against Money Laundering is able to ensure a better life for ordinary people who live in Romania or, on the contrary, to obscurely solve the financial interests of foreign or Romanian large companies controlled by intelligence officers and politicians, in the context where studies show that many of the companies declaring losses in Romania actually take their profits out of the country, which amount up to billions of Euros?
- why is that in the last 25 years, the liquidation of the industry was done at the scale of the whole country, and now Romania imports almost everything, starting from matches, cereals, food, raw materials and up to buses, trucks, airplanes, heavy duty machineries; dozens of industrial branches have disappeared and many of the industrial factories no longer exist, which used to attract labour force from wide areas. Studies show that in Romania, out of the first 42 companies in terms of size and significance, only 9 belong to the Romanian state and capitalists. Economic analysts draw the attention to a paradox: while the economy has come to the hands of the foreigners, for many years now, in the prosecutors’ files only Romanians seem to steal.
- why is it that the officials of the Romanian state have paid more than 50 million Euros to Bechtel (USA), but Romanians have not received in return any kilometre of highway or rural road. The National Anticorruption Directorate did not carry out the criminal investigation on this “business”, nor as a result of notification of the undersigned on Fbruary 26th, 2015, which presents information that Bechtel has transferred the amount of over 21,000,000 lei VAT included, the equivalent of over 5,000,000 Euros, to the company belonging to the son of one of the members of the Competition Council plenum, the period when the Competition Council had an investigation undergoing, which also targeted the Bechtel company. Here, you can also read about how the National Anticorruption Directorate protects the inaction of the Competition Council – Chapter II and Chapter V item 8.3.
- And, particularly, with regard to me personally, could it be that there is a causality connection between the General Dumitru Dumbrava, manager of the Legal Department of the Romanian Intelligence Service and the total and constant lack of any reaction of state’s institutions in relaiton to the case of Farmec SA in Cluj, ignoring the corruption and frauds that exceed 300,000m000 lei? Also taking into account the following aspects:
- the prosecutor Alexandra Carmen Lancranjan has collaborated with the Romanian Intelligence Service through the General Dumitru Dumbrava and was marked by the interaction and orders given in the Farmec file and other criminal files. Read here also about the National Anticorruption Directorate prosecutor Carmen Lancranjan (Chapter VI, item 3.8).
- the prosecutor Alexandra Carmen Lancranjan has followed the criminal case of Farmec to two different prosecutor’s offices and the case was transferred to her from the main prosecutors, failing to meet the provisions of Art. 64 Par. 4 of Law 304/2004, with the result of classifying the deed of tax evasion by the ordinance of January 13th, 2015, under the conditions where thousands of documents have disappeared from the file, evidence that existed in the case. Please also read about the request to restore the criminal file (Chapter V, item 12).
- The General of the Romanian Intelligence Service, Mr. Dumitru Dumbrava has specified in the hearings of the Parliamentary Commission for the Control over the Activity of the SRI that he knows prosecutor Alexandra Carmen Lancranjan and has collaborated with her, that he has interacted with prosecutors and judges. Daniel Dragomir, former colonel in the Romanian Intelligence Service, claimed “From the data I have, General Mitica Dragomir has coordinated the prosecutor Alexandra Lancranjan alia the Squirrel for many years now”, although from the perspective of the provision specified in Art. 7 Par. 1, 2, 3 and 4 of Law 303/2004, the collaboration between magistrates and officers from the intelligence services is prohibited. The law provides sanctions regarding the magistrate, and the procedural documents are null and void, according to the excerpt from Art. 7 Par. 1, 2, 3 and 4 of Law 303/2004. Read also about A.C. Lancranjan (Chapter VI, item 3.8) and about the SRI (Chapter V, item 4);
- the prosecutor A.C. Lancranjan has been promoted to the department of the National Anticorruption Directorate where the complaint of the undersigned was not under process, on favouring the offender by the prosecutor prosecutor Alexandra Lancranjan, as well as the corruption deeds of the officials of Farmec.
- the officials of Farmec have benefited from the refund of the excise duties from ANAF, without submitting the documents specified in the law at item 22 Par. 34 of the Methodological Norms for the Application of the Fiscal Code; read also the explanations and justifying documents attached in Annex 9 on the requests of Farmec to refund the excise duties, control reports and refunding decisions of ANAF – the National Agency for Fiscal Administration (Agenția Națională pentru Administrare Fiscală).
- The Directorate for Integrity of ANAF has requested the authorisation of the President of ANAF for the notification of the Prosecutor’s Office through the Internal Control Report DGI 2689/22.06.2018, which also includes the action of notifying the National Anticorruption Directorate, and the President of ANAF, Mr. Ionut Misa, on August 31st, 2018 he has returned the Control Report and, without any reasoning, he specified on a POST-IT “MEASURES WITHOUT THE DNA”;
- Although the Court of Accounts observed in the Report of 2013 that the customs officials of ANAF have violated the Law because they have refunded the excise duties to Farmec SA without the company presenting the evidence of the actual consumption of alcohol and have accepted the conditions required by Farmec, it ordered on page 157 of the Report that ANAF would conduct controls with other regional authorities, ANAF failed to meet this provision and still continues to “practice” the illegal refunds. Please also read Chapter V, item 2.
- Ioan Gligor, Ioan Rus, Ioan Zadic, ANAF have participated both in illegal alcohol returns for 10 years, and in the formal fiscal control within the DGAMC-ANAF and the preparation of the Fiscal Inspection Report of 15.12.2014 on fining Farmec with 69,000,000 lei. The fiscal inspection report has been cancelled by the Court of Appeal of Cluj, but ANAF has not verified the aspects outlining the fraud marked in the notification of the undersigned. Please also read Chapter V, item 2.3 and Chapter VI, item 13.
- The National Anticorruption Directorate, through the department managed by the prosecutor Marius Bulancea, has not worked on the notification of MAI-DGA for 1,335 days, the notification of ANAF-DGAF for 627 days, the notification of the undersigned for 907 days, the complaint of the undersigned of August 1st, 2017 for 377 days and the request for evidence and probation items for a number of 296 days, which was issued on October 20th, 2017, until July 12th, 2018, the date when the prosecutor Mihaela Beldie Canela has ordered by ordinance the commencement of the criminal investigation in REM.
- after one month, by the order of Augst 21st, 2018, the prosecutor Mihaela Beldie Canela has ordered the solution of classification, without there having carried out in the case any criminal investigations, respectively without having analysed the documents submitted by the undersigned, evidence in the file and without the DNA to have brought to the file the documents specified in the complaint as evidence, without having carried out the hearing of the undersigned or of other individuals and without any reasoning. Read also about the prosecutor Mihaela Beldie Canela (Chapter VI, item 9)
- The Superior Council of Magistracy has ignored the notifications of the undersigned on the noncompliance with the Law by the magistrates, including those concerning prosecutor C.Lancranjan and aiming to favour the offender
- could it be that the transfer of case no. 27411/2/2005, in noncompliance with the law, from the judge Gheorghe Grecu to judge Diana Magdalena Bulancea has been done for the new judge to reject the action and limit the access of the plaintiff to the evidence in the file?
- could it be that the promotion of judge Magdalena Bulancea at the European Court of Justice in Brussels and the promotion of her husband, Marius Bulancea, in the position of head of department in the National Anticorruption Directorate be a reward for “solving” certain issues that arise from the noncompliance with the law by the protected individuals? By clicking here, you can also read about Magdalena Bulancea (Chapter V, item 10.2).
- could there be a Right to property that is intitutionally protected or just “EXECUTIONS”, trials that are not judged, but only transactioned, the decisions being made in a different environment, based on reasons and interests that exceed the law, under the conditions where the judgement and rejection of the actions of the plaintiffs Prestige and Galic in the Courts of Justice by judges took place without these companies accessing “evidence” in relation to which the judges only pretended to be in the file? The cases wherein the plaintiff company did not have access to the “EVIDENCE” in the file and which were completed by the rejection decisions no. 2576 of 17.05.2007 of the High Court of Cassation and Justice (in the file 8694/1/2005 Kraft Foods), sentence no. 4229 of June 25th, 2012 of judge M. Bulancea – CAB (in the case 27411/2/2005 Colgate Palmolive), decision no. 2757/May 21st, 2009 (in the case 4022/2/2007 Unilever South Central Europe).
- could it be that the permanent theft of property by the violation by the officials of Romanian institutions of the rights and ethical principles and provisions recognised by the Romanian Law, through the directives and Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, the constant diminution of the value of my property and blocking the use to the just value of my rights – which derives from the property I have legally acquired are likely to encourage or discourage an honest investor, a Romanian citizen, to invest and undertake entrepreneurial activities in Romania?
- is it possible for Romanian politicians to be able to provide ordinary people with the right to a fair trial, the only way that protects the Property right, in the context where it is well known that there is currently a large number of prosecutors and judges who are collaborators, informants, officers of the Romanian Intelligence Service and, based on Art. 7 of Law 303/2004, should they be released from the positions held because these magistrates execute orders and do not participate as an independent state power, the judicial power, in fulfilling fair trails in the limits provided by the law?
- when shall it be possible for us, Romanians, as European citizens, to live in Romania and enjoy the same respect of the public servants and institutions, as the European citizens and companies enjoy it, which carry out their activity either in Romania, or in west European countries such as Germany, France, England, Italy, Spain, Belgium and so on?
“ROMANIA HAS BECOME SOME SORT OF A MOBSTER STATE”
said Traian Basescu, the President of Romania between 2004 and 20015
In the language used by Traian Basescu, the mobster state in Romania consists of public servants, politicians, intelligence service officers who manage the activity in institutions to not solve the registered notifications and complaints or to solve them formally, in violation with the law, with the result of controlling some profits in certain companies with private capital in Romania, and in extreme cases, people have disappeared or have been murdered (the case Dan Condrea – Hexi Pharma, the case Codrut Mart, general secretary of ANAF, the case Mihai Erbasu, the case Florin Anghelescu, both of them have had relations with the public servants as shareholders of some prestigious companies, the case of prosecutor Cristian Panait, the case Dumitru Tinu, the case Catalin Chelu). Please also read the press articles (Chapter XII item 28)
For comparison, I mention that the Italian Mafia, consisting of individuals and private entities and their companies have also guided and controlled politicians and officials from institutions, and in extreme cases, in the ‘70s, ‘80s and ‘90s, public servants from institutions were killed.
- Bribing or influencing the prosecutors, judges and public servants by the officials of Farmec through “INCENTIVES” has been protected by the prosecutors of the National Anticorruption Directorate
The abuses were initiated and implemented intentionally, as Mr. Turdean Liviu, one of those protected by the intelligence officers, told me “In Cluj, I am the law” (In Cluj, eu mi-s legea) and it proved he was right. Moreover, Turdean Liviu and Pantea Petru Iacob have proven that in reality they have control over institutions throughout the country, from the mountains to the sea, as they have been represented to have the “key”, to control state’s institutions through current or reserve intelligence officers. Following this reasoning, Turdean was sure that any theft from the property of the undersigned or the state, any abuse or crime shall be protected and validated within the institutional framework as being legal.
Through certain “clever” lawyers representing the prolongation of the interest of some officers and politicians, as well as the instrument to transmit the result they want to any of the national institutions, after a personal involvement of over 25 years, Turdean and Pantea felt they had to leave the Farmec company to their sons and daughters-in-law, along with the “universal key” regarding the control of national institutions, as well as the habit to use the property of the undersigned for their own benefit.
The content of some phone conversations between Turdean and Pantea point out that Lucian Pintea and Mircea Turdean have influenced the adoption of a solution that is favourable for them in the Tribunal of Satu Mare, according to the excerpt in the note of phone conversations – page 8:
“The Accused PANTEA PETRU IACOB: Well, you! 2003, 2004, who say you influenced so that we win at SATU MARE (Note: the case no. 7386/1285/2010) was on the docket of the Tribunal of Satu Mare) By clicking here you can also read the information on how they controlled that the cases no. 7386/1285/2010 and no. 1613/54/2014 would be assigned to certain judges who would give the decisions they needed (Please also read Chapter V, item 8.3 and 10.12).
PANTEA LUCIAN: Yes.”
The phone conversations point out that Lucian Pintea and Mircea Turdean pay “INCENTIVES” for everything to be favourable.
“The Accused Turdean Liviu: Now it would be good. My opinion, you speak to Lucian, because I have no power, you are Lucian’s dad after all, Mircea is leaving…
The Accused Pântea Petru Iacob: I did. You know what Lucian told me? And that’s what they all say, and Mircea and the other one is definitely against… she’s not interested, because she doesn’t respond. That she took such actions (MEASURES???), but you understand, with such MEASURES TO STIMULATE, so that ALL WILL BE IN OUR FAVOUR.”
Or, incentives mean money given. To whom and what for? Possibly to some public servants, prosecutors, judges, officials of ANAF, officials of the Office for Prevention and Fight against Money Laundering, and so on, for them not to solve the notifications and petitions or to solve requests and actions favourably for the administrators Turdean and Pantea, meaning to reject requests for evidence, to contribute to the disappearance of evidence from the file, to admit in the file the expertise that does not reflect the actual operations and so on. By clicking here, please also read about incentives and the results thereof in terms of influencing the institutions (Chapter V, item 8.3)
Although such deeds are provided in the criminal code as offences, such as the traffic of influence, giving and receiving bribe, favouring the offender, the protection granted by the National Anticorruption Directorate can be easily observed, which has not carried out any criminal investigation in the case of complaints and notifications submitted to and registered with the DNA by the undersigned, by ANAF – DGAF and by the DGA – MAI. Please also read information on the National Anticorruption Directorate (Chapter V, item 8.3)
Turdean and Pantea have initiated illegal operations with the company’s patrimony, illegal operations with the shares and share capital of Farmec and have created a stake and an interest for the intelligence service officers, politicians and decision-makers in the power structures of the country. The consequence of these practices is for the state’s institutions to operate selectively or formally, and the public servants to not solve the notifications and petitions received or to solve them by noncompliance with the law.
- The individuals who violate the Law and my right to Property have the promise to be protected.
Through practices prohibited by the Law, my opponents knew that they were above the law as a result of the INTERVENTION at the state institutions through some intelligence service officers, through the officials of the embassies in Bucharest, through certain lawyers and politicians, deeds likely to ensure the initiation and continuation of:
- Illegal refunds of excise duties by the National Agency for Fiscal Administration (ANAF), corresponding to the purchases of 96.5% refined alcohol, which was even non-distorted according to the law, without Farmec SA presenting the documents stipulated in the Law, in item 22 Par. 34 of the Methodological Norms for the Application of the Fiscal Code.
- illegal operations with the shares of Farmec
- successive and illegal operations to increase the share capital by 5,294,256 shares, by limiting the right of the undersigned to subscribe to new shares. The price per share is 2.5 lei, a price underestimated by more than 30 times, compared to the accounting or market price of a share, followed by the payment of dividends amounting 7.5 lei per share, after only 6 months since the investment.
- illegal use of shares in voting, in shareholders’ meetings, shares that were not subscribed and were not paid by shareholders, but by Farmec company. Please also read Annex 7, Farmec SA payment orders to the Farmec Pas association (chapter IV, item A).
- registration in the shareholders’ book of some individuals from the Turdean and Pantea families, without them having the legitimate right of shareholders, in noncompliance with the provision specified in Art. 8 of the Articles of Association of Farmec, which regulates that: “nominative shares are only transferable only between shareholders ”… “the shares acquired under the conditions of these Articles of Incorporation can be submitted to third parties only by legal inheritance”
- maintaining by the President of the Romanian Competition Council some anticompetitive practices that harm the consumers, the competitive environment, the business and living environment, as well as small and medium-sized economic agencies with Romanian or foreign share capital.
- the refusal of the President of the Competition Council to open legal investigations, which would transparently verify the practices prohibited by the law
- the refusal of the President of the Competition Council to ensure the environment of investigations that would highlight anticompetitive practices that harm the consumers, the disappearance of evidence from the files and archiving the evidence to not be used in investigations. Please also read order no. 7 of Bogdan Marius Chiritoiu – Annex 72, on archiving evidence regarding agreements of exclusion of competitive products from the store shelves.
- the refusal of Competition Council President to fulfil irrevocable court decisions that ordered the Competition Council to carry out illegal investigations.
- The interventions of politicians, embassy officials and intelligence service officers were or are likely to ensure:
- the protection of alcohol operations, under a regime of illegal refund of excised duties, carried out for more than 15 years, at Farmec, under the management of Turdean and Pantea, who multiply their number of shares and the percentage of the company’s share capital, acquired by theft. The endless theft is protected by state institutions, the damage exceeds 60,000,000 de Euros, and the “business” continues.
- the continuation of this “business” by maintaining individuals in the management of Farmec who violate the Law, the Articles of Association and property right and the appointment, maintaining and promoting individuals in management and execution positions in institutions, who would determine maintaining and protecting the operation of fraud mechanisms,
- maintaining and continuing anticompetitive operations prohibited by Law, which are protected by the group of interests which M. Chiritoiu is part of, the acting president of the Competition Council and generate very high profits and harm the consumers and economic agents in Romania.
There are documents that highlight the fact that the interventions have always been done at the top of the Romanian institutions, which according to the law should have contributed to stopping the frauds and recovering the damages. For example, Mr. Blair L. Labarge and Mr. Robert J. Tate, officials of the US Embassy in Bucharest, individuals who are not parties in the civil or criminal files went to the Competition Council, to the prosecutor’s offices, courts and other institutions in Romania, representing the interests of officials in the companies that violated the law. Please also read the Competition Council (Chapter V, item 7). Please also read the National Anticorruption Directorate (Chapter V, item 8.3 and Chapter VI, item 3).
The Romanian Competition Council did not fulfil its active role provided by the law, as a national authority to contribute to the creation of a competitive environment where consumers and economic agents co-exist on the market of consumer goods and services.
Never has a spider web been weaved like this, consisting of institutions of the Romanian state from one end of the country to the other, so that a significant shareholder could not defend before the court his property guaranteed by the Constitution and by the European Council of Brussels against the abuses of officials in trading companies and public servants from national institutions, although it is said that the property right would be guaranteed by the Constitution and by the European Commission in Brussels.
Never has it happened before that so many high-ranking state officials from various power institutions agreed that a minority shareholder would be robbed of over 15,000,000 Euros or companies with great financial power to record huge profits at the expense of Romanian citizens and to the detriment of Romanian companies, by generalising anticompetitive practices or as a result of imbalanced treatments, which the same companies have practiced in Romania to achieve profits, but have not practiced them in Western European countries, such as Germany, France, Italy, England, Spain. By clicking here, you can also read about Frauds – Chapter IV, item A.2 and about the Competition Council regarding the noncompliance with the law and court decisions by the Competition Council (Chapter III, item 4).
Frauding Farmec, the undersigned, the state budget by individuals from the group of interests of the Turdean and Pantea families, as well as frauding the consumers, the state and trading companies through anticompetitive practices by economic agents that are protected by the Competition Council, stilll continue to this day and have illegally enriched the public servants, heads of ANAF, heads of the Prosecutor’s Offices and tribunals, deputies, lawyers, individuals posing as integer people.
In those cases where politicians and intelligence service officers have a private interest, the prosecutor’s offices fulfil orders and certain lawsuits become mere “executions”, in order to fulfill orders as the “executions” of the undersigned. Perhaps this is why over 4-5,000,000 people have left Romania looking for a place in the world where they would be respected. With a clik here you may read about the “execution” of the undersigned in the case no. 3414/1285/2011 of the Specialised Tribunal of Cluj, the HCCJ, the Specialised Tribunal of Arges, the Court of Appeal of Arges (Chapter V, item 10.5). By clicking here, please also read about the “executions in the cases no. 442/1285/2016, 1021/1285/2016 of the Specialised Tribunal of Cluj (Chapter V, item 10.5.2).
- The pressure of ANAF and the blackmailing of the Competition Council that would determine me to quit
Because in the context of the aforementioned considerations, I stubbornly believed that I could have some success, in my attempt to seek my JUSTICE and PROTECT MY PROPERTY, I had to face more than 21 fiscal controls from ANAF, through the directions of the public finance administration, at the companies where the undersigned and my wife have a certain quality, as well as with threats over the phone and SMS’s. Please also read the information about the National Anticorruption Directorate (Chapter V, item 2).
My opponents at first received illicit patrimonial incomes and growths, which result from damaging and diminishing my patrimony that I legally owned before the illegal operations had occurred. By means of these incomes, they have directed and controlled the state institutions to not carry out legal controls regarding the investigation of the fraudulent operations in relation to which the state institutions have been notified by the undersigned. Moreover, they made use of the state institutions to carry out controls, which would find or improvise irregularities and to determine me quit protecting my property. Please also read about the intervention of Bogdan Iuliu Hossu at Gelu Stefan Diaconu, President of ANAF (Chapter V, item 2.9). Please also read about Gelu Diaconu and the financial connection between the company that belongs to the wife of the ANAF president and the Prodvinalco company headquartered in Cluj, an alcohol supplier and business partner of Farmec SA (Chapter VI, item 1, letter e).
Two officials of the Competition Council have imperatively and threateningly requested us to withdraw our complaints against Colgate Palmolive and Kraft Food from the Competition Council. In the absence of an amiable resolution of the commercial case, the refusal of the undersigned to abide by and withdraw my complaints against Kraft Foods and Colgate Palmolive resulted as “reward” by fining the plaintiff company Prestige Trading with the amount of 1,500,000 lei, a fine that proved to be illegal, because the court cancelled it through the sentence no. 1784/04.04.2016 but the Competition Council has not yet not carried out the legal verifications, although the Court of Appeal of Bucharest and the High Court of Cassation and Justice has ordered the Competition Council by the sentence no. 302/2005 and irrevocable decision no. 37/2006 to carry out the legal investigation. Please also read about illegally fining Prestige company with the amount of 1,500,000 lei regarding the blackmail of the Competition Council to determine me to withdraw my complaints (Chapter V, item 7).
- The protocols between the Romanian Intelligence Service and institutions exceed the law.
The Protocols that have been concluded between the Romanian Intelligence Service and the Courts, Prosecutor’s Offices, the National Anticorruption Directorate, the Competition Council and other important institutions in Romania represent the instrument created by the intelligence officers to intervene at the state institutions to obtain the results and decisions that these individuals and others who are part of the same group of influence had an extra-institutional interest in acquiring them. Read also about the Romanian Intelligence Service (Chapter V, item 4).
- The Romanian Intelligence Service has listened to 6 million people with national security mandates under the conditions where no more than 13-14 million people currently live in Romania, women, men and children, and of these, six million Romanians have been listened to, and seven million Romanians have gone to other countries.
We do not know if for the 6 million Romanians there were real reasons for suspicion regarding the violation of national security or just the curiosity of some officers or politicians to know as much as possible about their opponents or about the magistrates who carry out their profession in good faith and in this way to get possible tools for blackmail, with the result of getting what they want from the opponents or from certain magistrates.
- The mob state kept under the terror of investigations in the context where a number of 3240 magistrates of whom 2193 judges and 1227 prosecutors with files opened at the DNA, as a result of the collaboration between the Romanian Intelligence Service and the National Anticorruption Directorate.
- Cases of corruption that harm the national security and harm the interests of Romanians
Examples illustrating, on the one hand, the provisions of the law, the Constitution and the European Law are just an unfulfilled promise in the cases where intelligence officers, politicians, embassy officials and economic agents have interests that exceed the limits of the law, and on the other hand although the national security has been flawed, the Romanian Intelligence Service did not initiate prevention measures to Romanian institutions.
- TAX EVASION. Since 1992, Romania has become a paradise for tax evaders in areas such as import-export of vegetables and fruit, agricultural products (wheat and corn), sugar, poultry meat and, obviously, petroleum products. According to EU and INS-Romania official studies, between 2000 and 2015 TAX EVASION reached in Romania the huge amount of 450 billion Euros – about 25% of GDP.
- THE EMBARGO OPERATION. As we know, by a UN resolution during the Balkan War, an EMBARGO was set in Serbia. From the documents made public by the daily newsletter SECUNDA (secundatv.ro), the VIOLATION OF THE EMBARGO by Romania was coordinated by the president of the country at the time, Mr. Ion Iliescu, helped by the Prime Minister Nicolae Vacaroiu and by the head of SRI Mr. Virgil Magureanu, who, during a trial remained without any concrete result, stated: “THE VIOLATION OF THE EMBARGO has been decided in CSAT”, THE VIOLATION OF THE EMBARGO caused a damage to the Romanian state of about 3.5 billion Dollars. The US Ambassador in Romania, Alfred Moses, and the US UN agent, Roger Gregory, were bribed. The US Presidents George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton have been informed by the CIA about the VIOLATION OF THE MBARGO by Romania – 1992 (Document published by SECUNDA). Bush and afterwards Clinton did not move a finger to stop the robbery!
- THE BECHTEL ROBBERY. In eight years, 11 months and 20 days, the Romanian state has paid 2 billion Euros into the accounts of the American company BECHTEL to build 415 km of highway. BECHTEL built only 52 kilometres. The National Anticorruption Directorate did not conduct any criminal investigation to recover the money, the Contract with the American company BECHTEL became the biggest stump in the history of modern Romania;
- THE MICROSOFT FRAUD. The business with MICROSOFT licences spans over 15 years and has caused a loss of about 1 billion Euros to the Romanian state. The DNA split the MICROSOFT File for reasons that have not been explained. In fact, the DNA has been able to prove only a loss of about 15 million Euros, although those involved have declared that they have embezzled more than 500 million Euros only in the first 5 years, from 2000 to 2005.
- THE EADS FRAUD. In order to join the Schengen Area, it is mandatory that we have the borders secured according to the EU rules. In 2004, under the wand of the Romanian Prime Minister Adrian Năstase and the German Chancellor Gerhard Fritz Kurt Schröder, a security contract was signed with the multinational company EADS-AIRBUS. Although the famous FEASIBILITY STUDY defined a cost of about 540 million Euros, the contract was signed before the eyes of Năstase and Schröder for the amount of 650 million Euros because it was extended for the amount of 750 million Euros by the Minister Dan Nica – Nica is now MEP and the EU refused to lift his immunity in order to be investigated by the DNA – and in the end, the Romanian state made payments in a total amount of 1.53 billion Euros. On the day of publishing this material, Romania’s borders were not secured throughout the perimeter and were not accepted in the Schengen Area.
- FEASIBILITY STUDIES. Another method of countering the public money practiced by senior state officials on all industrial levels is the FEASIBILITY STUDY. According to a report, about 50 billion Euros have been spent on FEASIBILITY STUDIES in Romania, which have never been used, one of the reasons being the short validity term of 1-2 years;
- THE BANKING BUSINESS. After ANAF confirmed the investigation of the daily newsletter SECUNDA that reveals that during the journalistic study period of 2010-2015, of the 46 banks operating at the time in Romania only 12 had profit, the “BANKS” investigation started by the state institutions came into suspicious It is estimated that by the method of false statements of lack of profit practiced by BANKS, the Romanian state has lost approximately 10 billion Euros.
- SPOLIATION of Căile Ferate Române (CFR) (Romanian Railways). The thefts of metals and railway have caused the consequence of maintaining old railways without safety for life;
- DISTRUCTION OF THE AGRICULTURE. Theft, destruction and disappearance of the national irrigation system Romania had in heritage, a circumstance that aimed to determine Romanians to sell their arable lands to foreigners, for Cargill to take monopoly over cereals, the export of cereals at low price and later the import of cereals from other countries, depending on needs, at high market prices;
- SICKENING THE HOSPITALS. The Hexi Pharma Company that was controlled by Dan Condrea has concluded contracts with 350 state owned hospitals in Romania, where diluted sanitary products were supplied. Hospitals were infected with diseases, which caused the post-surgery infection of individuals and part of them died. The files from DNA and DIICOT got stuck without reaching the courts of law. It was said in the public space that he business would have been controlled by officers of the Romanian Intelligence Service. After the “business” became public, the owner disappeared;
- THEFT THROUGH EXCISE DUTIES. According to the National Anticorruption Directorate, the companies belonging to the Murfatlar – Euroavipo group have caused a loss of over 600 million Euros. However, so far, the file at the DNA before the court of law. Euroavipo has been the main supplier of non-denatured alcohol for a period of 7 years, in breach of the procedure specified in Art. 200 and 206 of the Methodological Norms for the Application of the Fiscal Code, but however the ANAF officials have returned the excise duties to Farmec SA;
- THE COMPETITION COUNCIL. In the various investigations carried out by the Competition Council, evidence have disappeared and rapporteurs have been replaced because Bogdan Marius Chiritoiu, the President of the Competition Council, wanted and succeeded to hush up the anticompetitive practices that harm consumers in Romania. Please also read about the Competition Council (Chapter V, item 7);
- EXPATRIATION OF THE LAND. The illegal restitution of lands and buildings with the complicity of public servants who have been determined to accept restitutions to natural persons who have been appointed on behalf of owners without justifying documents;
- Cutting of forests in Romania, and the beneficiaries of illegally cut timber were Austrian companies;
- THE CHAOS IN COMMERCE. The refusal of retailers operating on the Romanian market to negotiate and sell products manufactured in Romania;
- MANIPULATION through IT. The manner in which the companies SIVECO and ASESOFT, by themselves or in consortia, have won all tenders regarding the software for counting the election votes and data transmission; Please also read http://www.secundatv.ro/
7. Involvement of politicians to action or inaction, politicians preponderantly from the Social Democratic Party, on favouring the fraud and protection of individuals who violate the law
1) Ionut Misa – acting President of ANAF, is notorious for benefitting from the political support of Liviu Dragnea – President of the PSD (Social Democratic Party – Partidul Social Democrat), after three months of keeping it in the folder, on August 31st, 2018, he rejected the proposal of the Directorate for Integrity of ANAF regarding the notification in the case of ANAF officials who illegally returned the excise duties to Farmec SA for more than 10 years of the National Anticorruption Directorate, without a signed and reasoned communication, but only with the specification of “MEASURES WITHOUT THE DNA”, done on a post-it.
The same individual as Minister of the Public Finance and Manager of the Directorate General for the Administration of Large Taxpayers (DGAMC – Directia de Control Fiscal al Marilor Contribuabili) did not order to carry out verifications as a result of the notifications of the undersigned. Please also read about the Ionut Misa (Chapter VI, item 1.1). Please also read ANAF (Chapter V, item 2).
2) Tudorel Toader – The Minister of Justice, appointed in the PSD-ALDE Government, ordered verification measures on assessing the head of the DNA, Laura Codruta Kovesi and requested to replace her, based on a report of the control carried out at DNA in 2018.
The report of the minister only aimed at replacing an individual who meets the requirements of a group of interests with an individual who would respond to any request to solve the requirements of another group of interests in the context where:
- The report did not pursue a full analysis of the activity of the Anticorruption Directorate in terms of: the entry and registration of certain criminal records, as well as the lack of criminal investigations as a result of not assigning the indicative “P” to some of the files referring to protected individuals; the non-processing of a large number of criminal cases; the opening of the criminal investigation in REM of an excessive number, over 3400 cases against prosecutors and judges, which can be interpreted as obscure and non-transparent measures of blackmail of some magistrates. Please also read the case of replacing prosecutor Ramona Ciobanu with the prosecutor Alexandra Lancranjan (Chapter V, item 3.8).
- Tudorel Toader did not symmetrically order measures of evaluation also to the Ministry of Justice, which did not solve requests older than 3 years as a result of some notifications regarding the noncompliance with the law by the magistrates and judicial accounting experts. Please also read the Ministry of Justice (Chapter V, item 9)
3) Orlando Teodorovici – acting minister of public finances. Against the circumstance that the Minister has not solved requests of the undersigned with the frauds of Farmec nor the request on the acceptance for hearing and did not order the legal measures, the frauds at Farmec continue with the support of ANAF and the damages are not recovered. Please also read about Orlando Teodorovici (Chapter VI, item 6.4)
4) Rovana Plumb – acting minister at the Ministry of European Funds, Vice-president of the Social Democratic Party, deputy-minister in the prior government of PSD, is related to the offshore transfer of the amount of 700,000 Euros to the Allpington company with the registered office in Cyprus. As a result of the IGPR-DICE request, in relation to this money, the Office for Prevention and Fight against Money Laundering has not sent to the prosecutor’s office the circuit of the whole amount of money, the individuals who were the beneficiaries of the money, but it confirmed that only 60,000 Euros returned to into a bank in Romania without specifying the names of the individuals.
The publication “SECUNDA” http://www.secundatv.ro/ has revealed that Rovana Plumb had intervened for Frauds at Farmec SA at the Department for Monitoring the Excise Duties and Customs Operations of ANAF for the fiscal inspections to be carried out under the conditions required by Farmec. From this point of view, the transfer of the 700,000 Euros, suspiciously fictitious services carried out in parallel with the transaction of the Gerovital trademark from the former company Miraj SA to an offshore company in Cyprus through the Greek individual Christos Sapatinos, could have an explanation why the Office for Prevention and Fight against Money Laundering, managed by Niculae Plaiasu provided the police with incomplete information in the case no. 3164/P/2012 and why the prosecutors slowed down. Christos Sapatinas was involved in the corruption case “Poşta Română” (Romanian Post). In defrauding the Post, Sapatinas played the same role of bribe intermediary, just like in the case of FARMEC, but Nicolae Plaiasu did not provide the police with complete information about the money circuit, but only that part amounting 60,000 Euros were returned to Alpha Bank in Romania, and for the amount of 640,000 Euros he hid the final beneficiary of the money. Please also read about Rovana Plumb (Chapter VI, item 6.1).
Deputies of the Social Democratic Party in the management of the Parliamentary Commission for the Control over the Activity of the SRI
5) Claudiu Manda – PSD Deputy, head of the Parliamentary Commission for the Control over the Activity of the SRI
has not responded as a result of the petition of the undersigned on October 30th, 2017.
Although the document of the undersigned informed the Parliamentary Commission for the Control over the Activity of the SRI not only about the inaction of the Romanian Intelligence Service, but it also informed about strong indications regarding the control of the state institutions directed by officers and politicians in terms of defrauding the state budget and private property, there was no reaction, the parliamentary control was not exercised by the deputy Claudiu Manda, the President of the Parliamentary Commission, I have not been heard, officers of SRI have not been heard, nor have remedy measures been ordered.
The lack and refusal to exercise the parliamentary control by Claudiu Manda cannot be dissociated as connections of CAUSALITY with:
- The Farmec fraud that benefits of excise duties returns from ANAF, without Farmec presenting the documents stipulated by the Law on the actual consumption of alcohol in manufacturing, a “business” involving intelligence officers and politicians;
- the censorship of the PSD deputy’s activity by certain officers on exercising the parliamentary control in certain cases of defrauding the state and private property by the Commission for Monitoring the SRI Activity may result from the notorious relationship between Claudiu Manda, Olguta Vasilescu former mayor of Craiova City, Gheorghe Bica former chief of the Craiova Police Department and mentor of Fanel Trandafir also known as Cimino for his PhD thesis, Nicoleta Miulescu, general secretary at the City Hall of Craiova and the godmother Fanel Trandafir’s children, the latter benefits annually from large amounts of money resulted from renting some barracks without a building permit, part of them being located without any legal rights on the city hall domain and involved in card “businesses”, according to the excerpt of the video clips posted on the Internet: https://b1.ro/stiri/politica/dosar-de-politician-craiova-fratia-politicienilor-cu-militieni-si-interlopi-video-162552.html
“The electronic college of Craiova is very well known, and during communism it has trained a lot of IT engineers, many of whom are unemployed today. Craiova is also INFAMOUS for criminality. It is also known as the “Palermo of Romania”. Arrests over arrests, executions ordered between interlopers and gangs of card burglars. This operation is openly led by a group of interloper “godfathers” who virtually run the city. They have formed an alliance, known as the “Brotherhood“. Cimino , Gigioc, Caiac, Mavrichie, Rosianu and Magaru. They have all been charged with arms trafficking, blackmail, money laundering and other financial frauds ” Please also read about Claudiu Manda (Chapter VI, item 7.1).
6) Georgian Pop, head of the Parliamentary Commission for the Control over the Activity of the SRI in the previous mandate, informed me on a formal response to the circumstance that intelligence officers of the Romanian Intelligence Service has been informed by the notices of the undersigned dated April 24th, 2014 and as of October 15th, 2014 that state institutions violate the law in a controlled manner regarding the Frauds at Farmec. As a result of the notifications of the undersigned on April 2nd, 2018, June 7th, 2016 and October 30th, 2017 to the Commission for the Control over the Activity of the SRI, regarding the fact that the Romanian Intelligence Service does not carry out institution specific activities and information, the PSD deputy informed me that SRI: “…the case mentioned by you has been/is subject to specific measures at the level of the competent institutions of Romania, especially those that have control and inspection responsibilities in the financial-tax and customs area, but also in the management of public funds, ” but without informing the members of the parliamentary commission and without placing the work under the debate of the parliamentary commission’s members.
Parliamentary Commissions for the Investigation of Abuses, Corruption and Petitions
7) Ioan Balan – deputy in the National Liberal Party, head of the Committee of the Chamber of Deputies for the Investigation of Abuses, Corruption and Petitions had no reaction, I was not heard, no additional information was requested from me as a result of the petition – open letter that was sent to him on October 17th, 2017. Please also read the petition of October 17th, 2017 (Annex 77)
8) Victorel Lupu– senator in the Social Democratic Party, head of the parliamentary commission in the Senate of Romania, had no reaction, he did not hear me, did not request additional information from me, nor did he question the state’s authorities as a result of the information on the abuses noted in the petition of the undersigned on October 17th, 2017. Please also read the petition of October 17th, 2017 (Annex 77).
9) Adrian Nastase – Prime Minister of Romania between 2000 and 2004, by the GEO no. 165/06.12.2001, the government headed by the Prime Minister ADRIAN NASTASE, under his and Cristian Diaconescu’s signatures, ordered the retroactive exemption from the payment of customs duties in the amount of 1,193,700 USD, corresponding to the machines with the serial number 1/22-22/22 delivered to FARMEC SA by ONUDI and which were subject to the final import on June 10th, 1998 , according to the invoice/external invoice, an import for which customs duties were due under the law in force at the time of the introduction of the machinery into the country and which was based on falsified commercial documents, as established in the criminal case where the criminal liability of the guilty individuals could not be attributed solely due the fulfilment of the criminal liability prescription deadline for smuggling, but the retroactive issuance of the GEO no. 165/2001 by the government of the Prime Minister ADRIAN NASTASE also resulted in the impossibility of attracting the civil liability of the individuals guilty for the damage caused to the state budget at the time of committing the offense, namely in 1998. Please also read about Adrian Nastase (Chapter VI, item 6.2)
10) Cristian Diaconescu – Minister of Justice from the PSD in the Government of Romania headed by Adrian Natase, has signed the Ordinance no. 165/06.12.2001 by which the retroactive exemption from the payment of customs duties and VAT has been ordered, amounting 1,119,700 USD. The official document was made during the criminal investigation in the case 305/P/2000 in which officials from Farmec were defendants. The intervention of the government through this document created the consequence of the impossibility to attract the civil liability of guilty individuals and to recover the damage at the time of committing the offence in 1998.
11) Virgil Ardelean, former Secretary of State at the Ministry of Interior with the rank of General, has had for about 15 years the status of Secretary of State Minister, appointed in the Social Democratic Party government, Manager of the Military Intelligence Unit of the Ministry of Interior. Farmec SA transferred more than 800,000 lei to SC Ten Transilvania Energy SRL, the company that had a relation with the son of the former manager of the military intelligence unit of the Ministry of Interior, Mr. Virgil Ardelean (see Annex 318 – press article “Puii vulpii” (Fox’s cubs) which specifies that the lawyer Virgil Ardelean also known as the Fox (Vulpea) protects the ” businessmen, procurori or Transylvanian officers”. Although he no longer has an official position, in 2018 Mr. Virgil Ardelean welcomed President Klaus Johannis during his trip to Cluj.
12) Elena Udrea – began her political activity in 2002 as a legal councillor of the Social Democratic Party (PSD). She entered that year in the National Liberal Party, becoming a municipal councillor of the city of Bucharest. She resigned from PNL and joined the Democratic Party (PD), a predecessor of PD-L where she held the position of Deputy Vice President, President of PD-L – Bucharest, Minister of Tourism, involved in several cases, such as “Microsoft”, “Gala Bute”, “Hidroelectrica”.
There is a reasonable suspicion of possible influences exerted by the deputy ELENA UDREA to protect the illegal operations with excisable alcohol carried out by FARMEC SA, taking into account the press article “Exclusive: Mircea Turdean, Manager of Farmec: “Elena Udrea a facut un tratament cosmetic si a cumparat niste creme (Elena Udrea made a cosmetic treatment and bought some creams), published in Ziarul de Cluj (The Cluj Newspaper), on February 13th, 2015 (Annex no. 68), according to which Mrs. Elena Udrea’s trip to Farmec SA is related to “the dispute between Farmec and ANAF“, a circumstance that does not exclude the possibility that ANAF – DGAMC carrying out an incomplete tax audit and the erroneous determination of the amount of payment obligations owed by the company has been determined by its certain interventions, but also by the following aspects:
- it is well known the support ELENA UDREA benefited for certain companies from the former president of Romania, TRAIAN BĂSESCU, and the company FARMEC SA transferred many amounts of money to companies controlled by FELIX CONSTANTIN TĂTARU, who managed the electoral campaign of the former president, RESPECTIVELY the amount of 428,000 lei to the company CHAPTER 4 COMMUNICATIONS ROMANIA SRL, the amount of over 140,000 lei to the company CHAPTER FOUR COMMUNICATIONS AUSTRIAand the amount of over 14,000,000 lei to SPOON MEDIA SRL
- SPOON MEDIA SRL, headquartered on Modrogan Alley, was directly controlled by Felix Constantin Tataru until December 4th, 2008, afterwards the package of this company’s shares were transferred to its former associate CHIRILESCU CLAUDIA MARIANA, who stated in Jurnalul National (National Journal) that she bought a flat built by Udrea-Cocos with the amount of 284,665 Euros, while Elena Udrea specified in her wealth statement that she only collected 132,773 Euros for that flat. It is well known that Elena Udrea has ensured the protection also of the alcohol supplier Euroavipo, in relation to which ANAF has reported to be under investigation for operations that have caused a great tax evasion.
8. PROMOTION OF PUBLIC SERVANTS.
- Prosecutor Laura Codruta Kovesi received at the age of 32 the second mandate of Geberal Prosecutor at the Prosecutor’s Office attached to the HCCJ. Subsequently, she received two mandates of Chief Prosecutor at the National Anticorruption Directorate. Please also read about Laura Codruta Kovesi(Chapter VI, item 3.2).
- Prosecutor Daniel Morar – received two mandates at the National Anticorruption Directorate, after that a nine-year mandate of judge at the Constitutional Court. Please also read about Daniel Morar(Chapter VI, item 3.3)
- Judge Magdalena Diana Bulancea– received the position of judge at the Court of Appeal of Bucharest where the cases have been transferred to him in noncompliance with the law from the judge Gheorghe Grecu, although he continued to work in the Court of Appeal of Bucharest, rejected the action of the plaintiff Prestige in the case no. 27411/2/2005 and has been promoted to the Court of Justice of the European Union for a period of three years as of September 20th, 2016. Please also read about Magdalena Bulancea (Chapter VI, item 5.17)
- Prosecutor Marius Bulancea(husband) was councillor of the Prosecutor General of PICCJ and was promoted to the position of Chief Prosecutor at the National Anticorruption Directorate, the same department that for three years did not record the Farmec case with the indicative “P” and did not carry out the criminal investigation. Please also read about Marius Bulancea (Chapter VI, item 3.5).
- Prosecutor Alexandra Carmen Lancranjanwas delegated to the Prosecutor’s Office attached to the Tribunal of Bucharest. She followed the Farmec case to two different prosecutor’s offices. She gave the solution of classification for the deed of tax evasion in the context where it was informed that thousands of pieces of evidence had disappeared from the case file, a situation that would circumscribe the deed of favouring the offender. She has been promoted to the National Anticorruption Directorate at the same department where in the Farmec case no criminal investigation occurred for the deeds in the file. She was supported by the officer Radu Slavoiu, the former head of the legal department of SRI Bucharest and collaborated with the SRI General, Mr. Mitica Dumbrava. Please also read about C. Lancranjan (Chapter VI, item 3.8).
- Prosecutor Cristian Ban, within the Prosecutor’s Office attached to Court House of Sector 1, agreed to decline the criminal case 9016 in which officials from the Competition Council were investigated. The case was filed with the General Prosecutor’s Office through the resolution of the Prosecutor General of the PICCJ, Laura Codruta Kovesi(see Annex 85), then the case was closed. Afterwards, the Prosecutor Cristian Ban was promoted to the position of Prosecutor General of the Prosecutor’s Office attached to the Court of Appeal or Bucharest, the threshold of prosecutors in the Superior Council of Magistracy. Please also read about Cristian Ban (Chapter VI, item 3.10).
- Prosecutor Tatiana Toader – was the first prosecutor at the Prosecutor’s Office attached to the Court House of Sector 2 in Bucharest. During the period when she served her mandate as prime prosecutor, over 15-20 files in which I had interest were not under work. I exemplify the file 1481/P/2011, 14382/P/2010, 433/P/2011 in which the General Prosecutor’s Office found the delay of the solution, and the prime prosecutor Tatiana Toader denied the delay according to the communication in Annex 341. But after ten years, in 2018 I received the ordinance of classification in the file, due to the intervention of the prescription and the termination of the criminal trial signed by the prosecutor Adrian Petrescu (Please see Annex 122). The prosecutor Tatiana Toader was promoted to the Plenum of the Superior Council of Magistracy. Please also read about Tatiana Toader (Chapter VI, item 3.11).
- Prosecutor Georgiana Hosu – received the Farmec criminal case no. 305/P/2000 from Joita Tanase, the Prosecutor General of Romania, whose son had a contract with Turdean, one of the defendants in the case. The prosecutor Gerogiana Hosu ordered the removal from the criminal prosecution (please see the ordinance in Annex 342), which later proved to be illegal and ungrounded because it was denied by the Deputy Prosecutor General of Romania, but after the dismissal of Joita Tanase. For the same criminal deeds, in relation to which the prosecutor Georgiana Hosu gave the solution of release from the criminal prosecution, the courts found that the criminal law was violated, but the prescription intervened. The Prosecutor Georgiana Hosu was promoted as Deputy Chief Prosecutor at the Directorate for Investigating Organised Crime and Terrorism (DIICOT – Directia de Investigarea a Infractiunilor de Criminalitate Organizata si Terorism) (the Professional activity of Hosu Elena: 2013 – Present Day – Deputy Chief Prosecutor of DIICOT; 2012 – 2013– Chief Prosecutor of the Service for Fighting the Economic and Financial Macro-Criminality, DIICOT; 2007 – 2012 – Chief Prosecutor of the Office for Fighting the Economic and Financial Macro-Criminality, DIICOT; 2004 – prosecutor at DIICOT 1998 – 2004 – prosecutor at the General Prosecutor’s Office).
- Prosecutor Nicolae Andrei Solomonwas a deputy at the Prosecutor’s Office attached to the Tribunal of Bucharest during the period when the Prosecutor Lancranjan gave the solution of classification in the case no. 3164. He was promoted to the position of member of the CSM (Consiliul Superior al Magistraturii) with permanent activity here, at the Superior Council of Magistracy. Please also read about Nicolae Solomon (Chapter VI, item 3.12)
- Minister Ionut Misa, in the first year of his professional activity in the private sector, he worked for the Agroservice company. The close relation with Murfatlar has even deeper roots, since Ionut Misa worked for alsmot one year in the private sector. Thus, in 1998, at the of 32, Misa worked as economist at a limited company in Constanta, Agroservice (where he moved from in 1999 to the City Hall of Constanta, where he was in charge with taxes and duties until 2004). During his time as economist at Agroservice, the company was a shareholder in its turn in another local company – Europlus SA Constanţa, according to the data obtained by means of the application ro. Another shareholder company within Europlus was Vitivinicola, which later became Vie Vin Murfatlar after the privatisation in 2000, the first piece in the subsequent construction of the Murfatlar network of companies.
On November 11th, 2016, the National Anticorruption Directorate specified in a press release that the anticorruption prosecutors accused up to that moment 41 people (businessmen and officials from the Ministry of Finance and ANAF) and 9 companies in the tax evasion at Murfatlar, where the damage amounts to 600 million lei through frauds in the field of manufacturing and marketing of alcoholic beverages.
Murfatlar-Euroavipo is the main supplier of a quantity of 1,500,000 litres of 96.5% refined non-denatured alcohol (please see Annex 28 – explicative note and documents). He has been promoted to several positions, the chief of the tax office in Constanta, general manager of the Directorate for the Administration of Large Taxpayers, the Minister of Public Finance, president of the National Agency for Fiscal Administration (ANAF), a position from which he resigned on August 31st, 2018, returned the proposal to notify the National Anticorruption Directorate at the Directorate for Integrity of ANAF, then he returned the internal investigation report without any motivation but with the recommendation written on a post-it: “MEASURES WITHOUT THE DNA”. Please also read about the Ionut Misa (Chapter VI, item 1.1).
- Judge Adrian Bordea – former president of the SCM, son of General Aron Bordea, former head of Directorate I-Politics of the DSS – Directorate of State Security during the communist regime – has rejected the action of the undersigned in the civil case no. 4421/03.10.2005, the decision of rejection was inconsistent with the decision of the HCCJ no. 3455/07.06.2005 taken previously in relation to the same increase in the share capital. The judge was promoted as president of the First Degree Civil Division within the High Court of Cassation and Justice and President of the Superior Council of Magistracy. Please also read about Adrian Bordea (Chapter VI, item 5.20).
- Judge Aurica Voinescu within the Tribunal of Brasov in the case 2930/1258/2011. The case was assigned to her in violation of the repartition procedure provided for in Art. 11 and 139 of the Law on the random assignment in the case. She did not aim to bring in the case the evidence she considered useful and conclusive for the clarification of the case, of the register of shares and register of shareholders, with the information (payments) provided in Art. 177 of Law 31, awaiting 34 trial deadlines, an expertise “served” in another file without filing evidence in the case. She rejected the action of the plaintiff. During the trial, she was promoted twice as Department President of the Tribunal of Brasov. Please also read about Aurica Voinescu (Chapter VI, item 5.14).
- Judge Mona Pivniceru made an apparent opposition in relation to defending the action of justice in Romania and was promoted as judge in the Constitutional Court.
- Judge Razvan Rares Costea was brought with a delegation from a Tribunal to the Specialised Tribunal of Cluj by the Judge Denisa Baldean. Please also read about Judge Denisa Baldean (Chapter VI, item 5.4). Judge Rares Costea received the case 1021/1285/2016 in violation of Art. 11 and 139 of Law 304/2004 on random distribution, he rejected the requests for evidence and rejected the plaintiff’s action by ignoring the law, the European directive and some court decisions. During this time he was promoted, being the only candidate for the position of President of the Specialised Tribunal of Cluj. Please also read about R.R. Costea (Chapter VI, item 5.3).
- The police officer Aurel Dobre ignored the fact that thousands of documents and evidence have disappeared from the case file 3164/P/2012, was promoted with definitive appointment as manager of the Directorate for the Investigation of Economic Crime (DICE). Please also read about Aurel Dobre (Chapter VI, item 4.2).
9. Blackmail of prosecutors and judges by officers along with DNA prosecutors
The prosecutors from the National Anticorruption Directorate in collaboration with officers from the Romanian Intelligence Service opened a number of 3,420 files for the magistrates in Romania, out of which 2193 files target judges and 1277 target prosecutors, so that by pressure, they would impose on them solutions discussed in certain files.
The information obtained by the officers of SRI as a result of phone conversations illegally listened to has been used in the criminal prosecution files against a large number of prosecutors and judges who have been blackmailed to settle the solutions imposed in other files, or to accept to deliver the files to other magistrates.
According to the Parliamentary Commission for the Control over the Activity of the SRI during the period of 2005-2016, Romanians were listened to, based on 311,000 mandates for the technical surveillance of 6,000,000 Romanians under a CSAT decision in 2002, without legal decisions.
Please also read about the prosecutor Ramona Ciobanu against whom the DNA started the criminal prosecution in a case file and the files she had under work were transferred to the prosecutor A.C. Lancranjan who was brought by delegation within the Prosecutor’s Office attached to the Tribunal of Bucharest.
10. Disclosure of the names of judges, prosecutors and public servants who collaborate with the Romanian Intelligence Service
From the perspective of the reality in Romania, I believe that Romania can have a real and high-quality judicial process, unguided by the intelligence service only after the intelligence services shall publish the list of judges, prosecutors, public servants from any institution who are collaborating informants of the intelligence services, as well as after destroying the database regarding the recordings of six million people, which for some acting or reserve officers are a way of living, ways, levers and tools to guide decisions in files of personal interest but also appointments and promotions of certain individuals in executive or management positions within institutions in Romania or in Brussels. Please also read about the directed control of the institutions (Chapter II).
11. Concerted and guided measures that led to muting the press and televisions.
The media wrote about these frauds, but it stopped doing it some time ago. Farmec used an outrageous amount of money to make part of the press aim its lens elsewhere. But I also know that similar to other professions among journalists there are also people of integrity and in such cases the honour of a man is sacred, even in Romania, a country subjugated by corruption and ruled by people whose lives do not unfold under the benefit of the principle “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you”
In conclusion, until September 2018, the PROPERTY of the undersigned was not protected by the public servants in Romanian institutions, who, according to the law, have the duty to contribute to finding the truth, although the RIGHT TO PROPERTY is recognised and consecrated by the Constitution of Romania and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, and the European Commission guarantees that the rights promised shall be complied with.