ABOUT THE CORRUPTION IN ROMANIA, WHICH DESTROYS BUSINESSES AND LIVES
CHAPTER II – SUMMARY of Noncompliance with the Property Rights in Romania.
Further, I present two different cases in which the state institutions have selectively solved, respectively have not solved notifications or formally solved notifications, in noncompliance with the law, have not responded to the unlawful aspects emphasised by the notifications.
Failure to comply with the law. The systemic control of state institutions, guided by groups of interests.
The cases and examples included in this document have huge profits, resulted from illicit businesses with the state and from defrauding the law, resulting in high incomes, part of them not taxed, which groups of interests consisting of intelligence service officers, politicians, lawyers, prosecutors, judges, accountants, deputies, senators, public servants from state institutions benefit from, who do not solve or selectively solve the notifications, complaints and requests.
The document presents evidence that outline the premise that in the cases where there are private interests of public servants, intelligence service officers, politicians, they have permanently determined the state institutions to put the opponents “above the law”.
Click here to also read information about the Roman Intelligence Service – Chapter V, item 4 and Chapter III item 4. Please also read here about the privatisation of Unilever and the support of Acvila that was granted throughout the period, after Dero SA in Ploiesti became part of the patrimony of the Unilever Group. Subsequently, Unilever carried out its activity in Romania in violation of the Competition Law, which caused financial losses for Galic, with the goal and result of removing it from the contract (Chapter III item 5).
After the interventions of some officials of the US Embassy in Bucharest, intelligence service officers, politicians, at the top of some institutions, such as the ANAF, the Competition Council, the Prosecutor’s Office attached to the High Court of Cassation and Justice, courthouses, we can observe the following results regarding the directed control and the use of national institutions for the private interest of the groups of interests.
- The theft at Farmec in Cluj exceeds 300,000,000 lei and is protected by the Romanian institutions.
The unlawful result consists in validating some individuals in the administration and executive board of Farmec, the use of incomes as undeserved salaries and dividends, the payment of suspiciously unreal services to Romanian or foreign companies, also to offshore companies, and the money is returned to individuals and politicians in Romania, the purchase of quantities of non-excisable isopropyl alcohol and refined alcohol (undistorted, under a regime of illegal refund of excise duties – 1,000 Euros per hectolitre) from Farmec’s funds, without the officials of Farmec to present the documents stipulated in the Law in item 22 paragraph 34 of the Methodological Norms for the Application of the Fiscal Code, regarding the actual consumption of alcohol for manufacturing “In order to refund the excise duties, users shall submit to the territorial tax authority the application for the exemption of excise duties, accompanied by: c) the proof of the quantity used for the purpose for which the exemption is granted, consisting in a centralising statement of the quantities actually used and related documents”. Please also read information on the Department for Monitoring the Excise Duties, ANAF where we present evidence and annexes with the applications for the return of excise duties, fiscal control reports and decisions to return the excise duties (Chapter V, item 2).
The theft and the violation of the law, both with the shares, dividends and the patrimony of Farmec in Cluj, which they administered as a personal fief, as well as the illegal operations for the acquisition and use of excisable alcohol, were planned by Turdean Liviu and Pantea Petru Iacob by using certain social privileges and has depleted the treasury of Farmec SA and the state budget by over 300,000,000 lei, and the frauds and noncompliance with the RIGHT TO PROPERTY were possible in the context where:
- initially, in 1995, the price per share at Farmec SA was of 2.5 lei = 16 USD, and so far, Turdean and Pantea issued 5,294,256 shares at the price of 2.5 lei/share, the equivalent of 0.6 USD, by limiting my right to subscribe transactions by means of which seven individuals from the Turdean and Pantea families have acquired the majority of the share capital of Farmec, reaching from 0.4% in 1995 to 56% today. Please click here to also reads information about taking control over Farmec, illegal operations with the shares of Farmec, modus operandi, the evolution of the share capital (Chapter IV, item A.2).
- When voting in the AGEA meetings, Turdean and Pantea used shares unsubscribed and unpaid by the shareholders, but by the company, and the judges deliberatelyignored the evidence and failed to fulfil the court decisions that were reached in the case, easily abdicated from the professional obligation that regulates finding the truth in any case, and have adopted ungrounded court decisions, by means of which not only they created an obvious injustice, but, even more so, they forced me to pay huge amounts of money on fees for the lawyers and experts, for expertises based on incomplete, non-justifying evidence which fail to reflect the reality. Please click here to also reads about my execution by the judges at the Court of Appeal of Pitesti, namely judges Denisa Vilvoi, Adina Fundatureanu, Dumitru Vaduva who forced me by the decision 1329/14.11.2017 to pay the undeserved amount of 20,000 Euros (Chapter V, item 9) about the Tribunal of Arges (Chapter V, item 10.8); about the Specialised Tribunal of Cluj (Chapter V, item 10.5); about the Tribunal of Constanta (Chapter V, item 10.7); about the Tribunal of Brasov (Chapter V, item 10.10).
- The officials of Farmec have obtained refunds of excise duties on refined alcohol usable for spirits, without submitting the documents provided for by the law at item 22 Par. 34 of the Methodological Norms for the Application of the Fiscal Code on the actual consumption of alcohol in manufacturing, with the help of customs officials who have deficiently fulfilled their duties, knowingly, in violation of these legal norms but also under the protection granted by the governing bodies of ANAF and by some judicial bodies influenced by the group of interests formed around the administrators and the executive management of Farmec. Please click here to also read information about ANAF (Chapter V, item 2).
- the result of the fraudulent actions consists in the validation of some individuals in the management and executive board of Farmec, the use of illicit incomes in the form of undeserved salaries and dividends granted to the members of the Turdean and Pantea families, as well as to their faithful individuals who are in the group of interests and influence, by paying “incentives” or paying for suspiciously unrealistic services to companies in Romania or abroad, also to offshore companies, operations resulting in significant amounts of money being returned to Romanian individuals and politicians, the following cases being an example of the latter category:
- the transfer of the amount of 4,500,000 lei (which exceeds 1,000,000 Euros) + VAT to the company Net Brinel by Marcel Borodi, the brother of Mirel Borodi, the owner of Registrul Miorita, the depository of the Farmec shares, who does not reveal in the registers of shares and shareholders the shareholders’ payments for the account of shares and payment documents (receipts, payment orders) as required by the law. Marcel Borodi originates from Bistrita, where General Virgil Ardelean, also known as the Fox, former Manager of the Intelligence Service of the Ministry of Interior. Please also read the press article “Puii Vulpii” (Fox’s Cubs). The company Net Brinel has transferred more than 15,000,000 lei, the equivalent value of 4,000,000 Euros, to companies belonging to Sebastian Ghita, former deputy in the Commission for the Control over the Activity of the Romanian Intelligence Service, who received more than 7,000,000 lei, which is more than 1,500,000 Euros, from Sebi Ghita‘s companies.
- Farmec has transferred more than 800,000 lei to SC Ten Transilvania Energy SRL, the company that was connected to the son of Virgil Ardelean. Please also read Annex 318 – the press article “Fox’s Cubs” where it is specified that General Virgil Ardelean also known as the Fox, protects “businessmen, procurorior Transylvanian officers”. Although he no longer has an official position, Mr. Virgil Ardelean welcomed President Klaus Johannis during his trip to Cluj
- Felix Tataru has managed the electoral campaign of the Romanian President Traian Basescu, and Farmec has transferred over 20,000,000 lei to companies related to Felix Tataru (Chapter Four Communication and Chapter 4 Communication);
- Farmec SA transferred over 3,800,000 lei, the equivalent value of 900,000 Euros, to Alpiq Industries, for suspiciously fictitious services, the company that had connections with Nicolae Bogdan Buzaianu, the individual whom Elena Udrea mentioned in the press to have a close relationship with the DNA and DIICOT prosecutors. Please also read Annex 295 about “Buzaianuused to go on holidays a few years ago, or maybe even now, to the Cote d’Azur together with DIICOT and DNA prosecutors. When needed, I’ll also have some names… For meal times or on the vacations of Mr Buzaianu’s on the Cote d’Azur, prosecutors were also present. It remains to be seen if they were friends or simply in the entourage of Mr. Buzaianu, as a result of the problems he has.”
- Farmec has transferred 700,000 Euros to the company Allpington Investment Limited, with the registered office in Cyprus, with an OFFSHORE legal regime, for suspiciously fictitious services, and the money was returned to Romania. The company is related to Rovana Plumb, vice-president of the Social Democratic Party, former and current minister in the Romanian Government. The Office for Prevention and Fight Against Money Laundering refused to respond to the communication of the police about the entire money circuit and who the beneficiaries are, but only confirmed that part of the money, respectively 60,000 Euros, returned to Alpha Bank in Romania. Please also read information about Allpington (Chapter V, item 6). Please also read about Rovana Plumb (Chapter V, item 6.1).
- The National Agency for Fiscal Administration has been and is guided by groups of interests.
1) Ionut Misa, the current President of ANAF, kept in a folder for more than three months the proposal of the Directorate for Integrity of ANAF regarding the notification of the National Anticorruption Directorate as a result of the violation of the law by the officials of the Department for Monitoring the Excise Duties and Customs Operations of ANAF on the occasion of refunding the excise duties to Farmec SA, after which he sent the work back to the Directorate for Integrity with a post-it whereon it was handwritten “MEASURES WITHOUT THE DNA” , without any other communication and without any reasoning. (please see Annex 9 – applications of Farmec for refunding excise duties, fiscal control reports on the occasion of refunding requests and refunding decisions of ANAF. Please also read Chapter V, item 2 ANAF, DGAMC-ANAF).
It is easy to understand Ionut Mişa’s attitude, given the fact that he previously had several managing positions, namely Minister of Public Finances and General Manager of the the Directorate of Large Taxpayers of ANAF, qualities in which he did not solve the hearing requests regarding these frauds, and the Directorate General for the Administration of Large Taxpayers (DGAMC) did not carry out the fiscal verifications specified in the notification of the undersigned in 2014, an aspect also controlled by the Directorate for Integrity of ANAF, which, by the communication no. 3770 of October 11th, 2016 (Annex 21), he informed me:
“Given that, as a result of the verifications carried out by the internal control team, the issue you notify about has been confirmed, also in conjunction with the large number of reported issues that require a longer period of time for their relevant analysis and verification, the aforementioned petition has been transformed within the General Directorate for Integrity into internal control in compliance with Article 14 par. (1) letter (a) of O.P.A.N.A.F. No. 443/2014 for approving the internal control procedure of the activity carried out by the territorial centralised structures of ANAF”. Please also read about Ionut Misa ( Chapter VI, item 1(1))
3) Dragos Doros, former president of ANAF, sent to the DNA the petition of November 18th, 2016 registered under the no. 62163/18.11.2016 (Annex 285), a good pretext to pass to another institution the performance of fiscal verifications that is the competence of only ANAF, but he did not follow subsequently whether the DNA conducts the criminal investigation regarding the damage of the state budget through the fiscal frauds at Farmec Cluj. Read about the unsolved petition (Chapter V, item 13.1 (6).
4) Gelu Diaconu, former president of ANAF between 2012 and 2016, ignored the petition registered under the no. 9873/16.02.2015, as well as the notifications to the DGAMC since 2014 and 2015, whereby we informed the alcohol frauds and the money transfers of tens of millions of Euros, invoices issued by Farmec or invoices issued by providers from the country and from abroad who illegally diminish the taxable profit at Farmec SA, in relation to which we have presented evidence that the services are suspiciously fictitious. Please also read about the notification of September 14th, 2017 to DGAMC (Chapter V, item 2.3) and about the lawyers of individuals and legal entities (Chapter VI, item 2).
This attitude is explained by the fact that the “business” with the illegal refund of the excise duties to Farmec SA has been initiated during the period when Gelu Diaconu held the position of general manager of Customs in Romania, having under its subordination the Department for Monitoring the Excise Duties and Customs Operations, a department which, with excessive “generosity” has returned the excise duties to Farmec SA for more than 10 years now, without the company presenting the documents stipulated in the law regarding the actual consumption of alcohol in manufacturing.
The lack of any reaction from the former president of ANAF, Gelu Diaconu, in exercising the attributes of this position, in relation to this “business” from Farmec might also have an explanation for the existence of a certain personal interest in the context where his wife is a shareholder of COMITY PROD EXIM SRL, which was conducting business relations with the company PRODVINALCO in Cluj, manufacturer of alcoholic beverages.
5) As General Manager of the General Customs Directorate, Gele Diaconu has appointed Laurentiu Pusderca as the Manager of Regional Customs Department in Brasov and subsequently as the President of ANAF, appointed him as Deputy Director of the Fiscal Antifraud Directorate 7 of Sibiu, although Gelu Diaconu was informed about the Laurentiu Dan Pusderca’s quality as defendent in the criminal case no. 481/64/2009/a1, which, according to the law, it is a situation that prohibited the appointment in a managerial position within ANAF.
Laurentiu Pusderca is the longest-acting manager of the Fiscal Antifraud Directorate, who has “resisted” all the times when all the managers of the Fiscal Antifraud Directorate have been replaced many times, the only one who has always remained in the position of Antifraud Deputy Director in Sibiu every time, the “gratitude” being expressed by him through the decision to classify the petition no. 856/14.09.2017, after only five days since reception, without carrying out any fiscal control nor cross checks on the fiscal frauds specified in the petition and without requesting from Farmec SA and from the Department for Monitoring the Excise Duties and Customs Operations the documents that were underlying each request to refund the excise duties and each decision to refund the excise duties (please see the petition – Annex 23). He did not carry out any verifications regarding the topic and the frauds shown in the petition. The connection between keeping him in the position of deputy director of the department in Sibiu and the continuation of frauds at Farmec SA is obvious. Please also read about Laurentiu Pusderca’s practice to perform fiscal controls or not at the economic agents whose lawyer is his brother, Adrian Pusderca (Chapter VI, item 1.10)
6) Marian Stefanescu, officer of the Romanian Intelligence Service, UM 0472, as General Manager of the Directorate for Integrity of ANAF, breached the provisions of the law stipulated in Art. 45 par 2 of Law 188/1999, because he failed to fulfill the provisions of the President of ANAF, which were given on the occasion of the petition of the undersigned of 14.02.2018 (see Annex 27), as well as the provisions of Article 291 par. 1. of the Code of Criminal Procedure, in the context where he did not request all the evidence from the General Customs Directorate concerning Farmec’s requests to refund the excise duties, fiscal control reports and refunding decisions of the period between 2007 and 2018, did not request the quantification of the amount of the damage within the Directorate General for the Administration of Large Taxpayers, DGAMC, and did not notify the DNA with all the evidence.
Marian Stefanescu, as DGI coordinator, also rejected the request of the undersigned of December 12th, 2017 by which I requested the replacement of Inspector Georgeta Craciun, because she delays the completion of the internal investigation, did not intend for the individuals in the directorates to provide the documents that have been initially requested, through communications, and call for hearing the individuals who have had been summoned and refused to be present, circumstances that favoured the continuation of the frauds and the intervention of the prescription regarding the recovery of damages.
7) Daniel Diaconescu, officer of the Romanian Intelligence Service, was appointed by delegation in the position of Deputy Director for Integrity at ANAF, although he has the procedural capacity of suspect in the criminal case on the Euroavipo/Murfatlar affair, handled by the National Anticorruption Directorate, and Euroavipo was the main refined alcohol supplier of Farmec, to which he delivered a quantity of 1,500,000 litres of 96.5% refined alcohol, which was non-distorted. Please also read about the ANAF regarding the explanatory note and the accounting documents, invoices, Administrative Accompanying Document (DAI), which prove that the alcohol has not been distorted, yet ANAF has given decisions for the return of excise duties in violation of Art. 200 and 206 of the Methodological Norms for the Application of the Fiscal Code (Chapter V, item 2).
8) The Directorate General for the Administration of Large Taxpayers (DGAMC) carried out two formal fiscal controls at Farmec SA, under the first control having applied to the company a penalty amounting 67,000,000 lei, the equivalent value of over 15,000,000 Euros, but legally unjustified, to lead to cancellation, which was even achieved through the sentence no. 46 of the Court of Appeal of Cluj, the purpose and the result being to create the appearance of a fiscal control, without performing the verifications necessary to establish a real factual fiscal state and the second control ended on 21.06.2017 with a report drafted without cross-checks and without requiring all the relevant and necessary documents, all just to ensure the protection of frauds and their continuation. Please also read the protection of frauds at Farmec through the formal controls carried out by DGAMC – please also read the Directorate for the Administration of Large Taxpayers (Chapter V, item 2.3)
9) The Legal Department did not represent ANAF correctly and effectively, having the quality of injured party in the criminal case 3164/P/2012 of the Prosecutor’s Office attached to the Bucharest Tribunal, although it has admitted that thousands of documents as evidence have disappeared from the case, and during the trial of the case at court, was informed that the criminal prosecution case contains 57 volumes and not just two volumes, which were forwarded by the Prosecutor’s Office to the Tribunal. Please also read the the Directorate for Integrity (Chapter V, item 2.6).
10) The General Directorate for Integrity of ANAF has delayed the conduct of the internal investigation regarding the violation of the law by the officials of ANAF on the occasion of the controls at Farmec SA, doing it in an excessively long period, which lasted more than 750 days, the aim permanently pursued being the prescription of the deeds and the continuation of the “business” to defraud the state and Farmec, the non-recovery of the damages and the protection of the individuals.
- The appointment of Bogdan M. Chiritoiu as president of the Competition Council, in conditions of incompatibility to the provisions of the law, a means of damaging the Romanian consumers and state with billions of Euros
Bogdan Marius Chiritoiu has not yet deciphered the role of the Competition Council in the life of his fellow Romanians since on the one hand he was appointed as President of the Competition Council, being in the exercise of his second mandate, under the conditions where he was incompatible for the position, and, on the other hand, he does not have the professional training nor the experience required and provided by Art. 17 Par. (3) of Law 21/1996, so that his only concern was to satisfy illicit, personal or group interests, permanently seeking to create only the appearance of a legal activity within the Competition Council. Bogdan Marius Chiritoiu obtained his appointment as president of the Competition Council by the members of the consultative college and the members of the consultative college were appointed by Bogdan Marius Chiritoiu although they have private interests in commercial companies in connection with which Bogdan Marius Chiritoiu closed investigations without the consent of the plenum of the Competition Council or refused to initiate legal investigations. Click here and read Chapter V, item 7 regarding the Competition Council and Chapter VI, item 11 on B.M. Chiritoiu.
In order to achieve these objectives, Bogdan Marius Chiritoiu refused to fulfil court decisions, archived evidence to not be used in investigations at the Competition Council, closed investigations after he has abusively replaced the rapporteur in the case, refused to initiate investigations , mistakenly informed the European Commission in the case CHAP 236/2012 registered with the DG Justice, archived and “cleared” evidence, and then closed investigations. Please also read the “Banks” investigation with a damage ranging from 2,000,000,000 to 5,000,000,000 Euros, brought to the consumers with loans at banks as well as at state budget. Peer review note drafted during the bank investigation by the competition council Nathaniel Cornoiu – Chapter IV, item A.3, hired individuals on the Competition Council scheme in relation to which there is no evidence that they provided a daily and real service.
The measures were taken intentionally by Bogdan Marius Chiritoiu and have resulted in vitiating the competition and prejudicing the consumers and small and medium-sized economic agents, consumers and small and medium-sized commercial companies operating in Romania.
- The inefficiency of the activity of the Court of Accounts, which annually observes the violation of the law and huge damages to the state budget, but without the notification of the prosecutor’s office and without the recovery of the damages
The reports of the Court of Accounts annually highlight the violation of the law and the existence of damages of billions of Euros, but the prosecutor’s offices do not carry out investigations in these cases either because there is a group interest to keep certain frauds hidden or because prosecutors are busy with the irrelevant files but who which are of interest in creating pressures or some form of blackmail on some officials or magistrates, with the result of determining them to respond to certain orders.
Through the annual reports, the Romanian Court of Accounts observed through the annual reports the violation of the Law by the public servants, which resulted in creating damages amouting billions of Euros annually. In most of the cases, the reports of the Court of Accounts have not been the subject of criminal investigations in the prosecutor’s offices or in the case of the National Anticorruption Directorate.
In 2016, the Court of Accounts observed that the value of the damages was 9.3 billions of Euros, but the Prosecutor’s Offices were passive to the observations of the Court of Accounts.
In the case of the illegal refunds of excise duties to Farmec SA, the Court of Accounts observed in the report of 2013 the violation of the law by the customs officials of ANAF who refunded the excise duties to Farmec SA without the company presenting the documents provided by the law, without making proof of the actual consumption of alcohol in the manufacturing process and without presenting the production recipes for the products that contain excisable refined alcohol and have accepted the conditions required by Farmec. The National Agency for Fiscal Administration and the National Anticorruption Directorate have taken all measures for the frauds to continue, the Report of the Court of Accounts to be ignored, and for the future the Court of Accounts to no longer carry out verifications and findings and to no longer order remedy measures in relation to defrauding the excise duties and alcohol at Farmec SA.
Not only did the National Anticorruption Directorate or another prosecutor’s office carry out the investigations ordered, but individuals belonging to the group of interests, officers or politicians took the necessary measures for the Court of Accounts to no longer pursue that ANAF fulfils the remedy measures which the Court of Accounts has ordered to ANAF.
Moreover, the Court of Accounts has no longer responded to the petitions of the undersigned regarding the extension of the control period until now, because even during this period Farmec does not present the documents stipulated in the Law regarding the actual consumption of alcohol in manufacturing the products, but still benefits from the return of excise duties by the officials of ANAF. Please also read the Court of Accounts (Chapter V, item 1).
- The National Anticorruption Directorate has been and is being guided by groups of interests.
The National Anticorruption Directorate did not conduct criminal investigations regarding the Farmec frauds, with the help of customs officials, with the consequence of obtaining important illicit benefits, on favouring the offender by the prosecutor A.C. Lancranjan and by police officers, as well as on the amounts of money exceeding 8,000,000 Euros, related to individuals of the Competition Council Plenum.
The National Anticorruption Directorate has been notified about defrauding the state budget and Farmec, in the sense that we have submitted documents (please also read Annex 9) that ANAF refunds the excise duties to Farmec SA during the period between 2007 and 2018, without Farmec submitting the documents stipulated in the Law at item 22 Par. 34 of the Methodological Norms for the application of the Fiscal Code, but by the aforementioned ordinance it was not pronounced in any way.
This proves that the National Anticorruption Directorate, headed by the Chief Prosecutor Laura Codruta Kovesi, had no concern for the compliance with the law, the removal of the influences of the groups of interests and the stopping of corruption deeds or assimilated thereto, as it did not record the notifications of the undersigned, of DGA-MAI and of the Antifraud Directorate – ANAF with number of criminal case did not perform criminal investigations IN REM and IN PERSONAM regarding the frauds committed at Farmec SA between 2007 and 2018, although I have presented evidence regarding the participation of some officials of the Department for Monitoring the Excise Duties and Customs Operations did not carry out hearings, did not request evidence from the ANAF Directorates, did not investigate the connection between the abuses of magistrates and the group of interests around the Turdean and Pantea families, violating the provisions of Art. 129 of the Internal Regulations of the Public Prosecutor’s Offices and Art. 110 of the Regulation of the National Anticorruption Directorate, as well as the provisions governing the performance of a fair civil or criminal trial.
The National Anticorruption Directorate refused to perform the criminal investigation regarding the amount of money exceeding 8,000,000 Euros related to individuals in the plenum of the Competition Council, although it was required to notify this institution ex officio as a result of the petition of the undersigned to the European Commission on February 26th, 2015, a petition that was also submitted to the National Anticorruption Directorate. Please also read on DNA (Chapter V, item 8.3).
There is information that, via the PULP FICTION SRL company belonging to his son and not specified in his annual wealth statement, Neményi P. Iózsef Nándor, member of the Competition Council Plenum since 2004 until 2012, received:
– annually, the amount of 1,300,000 lei, VAT excluded, from OMV PETROM, which represents over 2,000,000 Euros;
– over 21,000,000 lei, plus VAT, the equivalent value of over 6,000,000 Euros, from BECHTEL International INC.
The National Anticorruption Directorate, headed by the Chief Prosecutor Laura Codruta Kovesi, following a consecrated practice, did not assing a “P” indicative number corresponding to a criminal case, and informed me, by the communication of March 9th, 2015, that it declined the case at the Prosecutor’s Office attached to the High Court of Cassation and Justice, a prosecutor’s office that does not have the competence to investigate deeds of corruption.
The information presented in the petition justifies the suspicion that there are connections of financial interest between public officials of the Competition Council, with lawyers and companies the activity of which was the subject of preliminary investigations or investigations within the Competition Council, and the decision making of this national authority was influenced for the non-resolution or improper resolution of the complaints regarding anticompetitive deeds and practice, a situation that cannot exclude:
(a) direct connection between the amounts of money received indirectly by officials of the Competition Council – amounts transferred to companies in Romania and companies headquartered in countries with an OFF-SHORE tax regime, by economic operators concerned by notifications addressed to this institution into the account of some companies which have not been specified in the officials’ annual wealth and interest statements – and the results of the investigations conducted by this national authority, where those public officials were institutionally involved by decision-making acts favourable to some economic operators related to which there have been many indications and evidence regarding the violation of legal provisions and competition principles;
(b) the existence of a system for distributing the amounts granted as financial “incentives”, “commissions” to economic agents who were involved in preliminary investigations of the Competition Council, between the individuals in the group that participated directly or contributing to adopting and maintaining some decision-making acts regarding the non-initiation of investigations in the case of anticompetitive deeds and practices, non-sanctioning or sanctioning in a lower or greater amount of the value of fines stipulated in the Law, an assessment justified by:
- The underground connection between (a) the significantly high value of the amounts transferred into the account of a company belonging to the son of a member of the Competition Council’s Plenum by economic operators whose object of activity is to trade fuels and perform infrastructure works and (b) the conditions in which there have been investigations and granting of dispensations within the Competition Council, in relation to the resale of fuels and construction of roads
- Providing legal assistance for these economic operators by “famous lawyers”, the only individuals in the system who “deciphered” the importance of the Romanian Competition Council and even participated in amending the Competition Law and the Regulations for its application, creating the favourable environment for the continued operation of anticompetitive practices of the economic operators they represent.
- The property is not institutionally protected, the right to a fair trial is not ensured.
The courts of justice and judges validate the decisions of the Farmec SA’s AGA, where the administrators Turdean and Pantea use for voting shares unsubscribed and unpaid by the shareholders and by the company to make new, obviously illegal decisions that are under the sanction of nullity.
A controlled and guided trial starts with the distribution of the files to certain prosecutors or judges who would make decisions favouring the opposite party, made in another environment. In the cases where the beneficiaries of the directed system do not have the certainty of the decision to be given in a case, the magistrates whom the files are assigned to are replaced by other magistrates during the trial proceedings. The magistrates who are brought by “dedication” to fulfil the order received accept the disappearance from the case file of thousands of documents, which are evidence in the case, accept as evidence in the file certain expertises without the party experts’ opinion, certain expertises that do not reflect the reality and represent forgery in the official documents, admit ungrounded exceptions, reject or remove evidence from the case file, limit the plaintiff’s access to the evidence in the file, which does not exist in reality and issue court decisions favourable to the party against whom the case had been filed.
The random distribution of files, governed by the law, is not complied with during a trial.
The individuals who have controlled and directed the national institutions and the Romanian courts of justice, failing to comply with the legal provisions provided by Art. 11 and 139 of Law 304/2004, which regulates the random distribution of the files and the continuation of the magistrate in the file, for the entire period of the proceedings of a civil or criminal trial,
– they have either assigned files to certain magistrates, failing to meet the procedure of random assignment of the file on the same day with the date of the file entry to court, but files that were recorded by the court after the date and time of the entry of files kept under “control” were recorded in the ECRIS system.
– either during the period of the proceedings of civil or criminal trials, those prosecutors and judges who were not certain to execute the orders sent to magistrates via specific unofficial channels through and from officers and lawyers have been replaced, measures that were set by the party who violated the Law and were sent to the judicial authorities.
In fact, in Romania there is no right to property or equality before the law, rights provided by the Constitution of Romania, in cases where intelligence service officers, politicians and officials from embassies, officials from large companies that violate the law are part of groups of interests and have an extra-institutional interest.
- Officers from the Romanian Intelligence Service and politicians have directed the institutions to get certain results in the causes of interest.
After several notifications and requests of the undersigned, without any result or response, I have not succeeded to convince individuals from the management of the Romanian Intelligence Service about the permanent vitiation of national security and the depreciation of the living climate as a result of the existence of some well-organised groups of interests, which public servants from various institutions, intelligence service officers, lawyers, accounting experts, prosecutors, judges and officials from companies with financial power operating in violation of the law are part of. Please also read on the Romanian Intelligence Service (Chapter V, item 4).
They are informed that the violation of the law results in obtaining illicit profits. However, the continuation of the illicit activity and the selective and formal operation of national institutions are due only to institutions’ control directed by certain intelligence service officers.
- JUSTICE IS CONTROLLED and DIRECTED, in the cases of interest.
The Property in Romania is not institutionally protected, JUSTICE IS CONTROLLED and DIRECTED, in the cases where intelligence service officers and politicians have a private, individual or group interest. The officers and politicians involved direct the justice and their orders transform the trials into real “EXECUTIONS” within the COURTS OF JUSTICE in Romania, and the rest of the institutions are directed not to solve or to formally solve the notifications and petitions regarding the noncompliance with the law, concerning deeds that have the effect of producing frauds resulting in frauds and damages to the private or state property.
The theft of property by individuals or legal entities operating in Romania, in violation of the law, is encouraged and protected by groups of interest, which ramify their control to the institutions of the European Union in Brussels.
THE PROPERTY RIGHT is not protected, taking into account the systemic violation of the right to a fair trial and the right regarding the equality before the law.
THE RIGHT TO A FAIR TRIAL in Romania begins with the notification by the litigants of the prosecutor’s offices or courts of law, the random assignment of the files and is completed by court decisions, as well as in the case of notifying other competent authorities to carry out verifications and issue decisions which, according to the law, can be censored by the courts of law.
THE PROPERTY is not protected in Romania by the Courts of Justice and the Prosecutor’s Offices which do not ensure the Right to a fair trial nor the right to equality of citizens before the law, Art. 16 of the Constitution, a state of fact known and tolerated by the Superior Council of Magistracy and the judicial inspection of the CSM, taking into account the following considerations:
1) The systematic failure to comply with the provisions of the law on the random assignment of files and the continuity of magistrates, until adopting a legal decision
(i) Upon the entry of files in the legal courts there is no random assignment;
(ii) The “ECRIS” system for the assignment of a (civil and criminal) file by departments to certain panels of judges consisting of certain judges is not likely to ensure the compliance with the random assignment of the files to the Romanian Courts of Justice as stipulated by the law, in the context where:
- the cyclicality and algorithm of the ECRIS system to assign the files by panels of judges by the president of the court and by the individuals involved in this activity
- the “ECRIS” system allows the entry of a file several times until it is assigned to the panel of judges which the court president wishes to attribute the case to, which is the subject of the trial (the version well known by the officials of the Superior Council of Magistracy under the name of “THE COVER”).
- the “ECRIS” system allows an individual to block the distribution of the files to certain court panels of judges, without blocking the panel of judges consisting of the judge whom the file is to be assigned to.
- the “ECRIS” system allows presidents⁴ of the Romanian courts of justice to input files into the ECRIS system in reverse order compared to the chronological order in which the files are recorded in the court’s general register and in a non-transparent manner, because the ECRIS system currently enables a civil or criminal file to be pending, and in the meantime, files that have entered the court after the date of entry of the file of interestthat is pending are recorded in the ECRIS system.
In the Romanian Courts of Justice there is no system of random distribution immediately and simultaneously with the entry of each file, in the chronological order in which each file arrived at the court. In the light of the aforementioned considerations, we cannot consider and accept that the distribution of civil or criminal files is random, as the files are entered into the ECRIS system in preferential order, in a controlled and directed manner, and this does not ensure the random distribution of the files.
As a consequence, under these conditions, the act of justice does not coincide with the act of rightfulness, the injustice is accentuated and the damage increases.
I exemplify files that have NOT been randomly distributed and assigned to certain panels of judges with the result of rejecting the requests for evidence and pronouncing certain court decisions made in another extrajudicial setting, visit the link www.coruptie-functionaripublici-ofiteri-farmec-consiliulconcurentei.ro/wp/.
(iii) In the cases where during the trial, the case is transferred to another judge, there is no random distribution.
The random distribution of files is not observed during the trial either, should the files be passed from one judge to another, respectively to another panel of judges, consisting of individuals who would meet the needs of the group of interests.
During the civil or criminal trial, judges or panels of judges are replaced, in noncompliance with the provisions governing the random distribution of the file and the continuity of the magistrate in the case, the result being the transfer of the files of certain magistrates who would pronounce decisions made in another setting that is favourable to one of the the parties.
I exemplify the criminal case 2485/300/2011 at the court house of Sector 2 in Bucharest and at the Court of Appeal of Bucharest. Please also read about the Court house of Sector 2 and the Court of Appeal of Bucharest (Chapter V, item 10.2). Please also read on the Court of Appeal of Bucharest about the replacement of Judge Gheorghe Grecu with judge Magdalena Bulancea with the result of rejecting the action in the case 27411/2/2005 and regarding the case 2485/300/2011 on replacing judge Cristiu Ninu Luminita, although the magistrate continued to work within the Court of Appeal of Bucharest (Chapter V, item 10.2).
2) The non-observance of the provision regulating the continuity of the magistrate, which is stipulated in Art. 11 and 139 of Law 304/2004.
During the civil or criminal trial, the magistrate is replaced with another, who was showed “guarantees” on the decision to be made in the case, should the individuals conducting the act of justice observe that the magistrate who received the file the first time does not respond to the requests of the intelligence service officers directing the justice.
The transfer of the case to another magistrate is done in disregard of the provisions of Art. 11 and 139 of Law 304/2004 on the random distribution because the file is not reinserted into the ECRIS system.
Moreover, it can be noticed from the practice that the magistrate whom the file was taken from continues to operate within the same court of justice.
3) Justice in Romania is done with the prosecutors and judges who can be officers under cover, collaborators or informants of the intelligence services, which violates the imperative provisions of Art. 7 par. 1, 2, 3, 4 of Law 303/2004:
- Officers, collaborators or informants of the Romanian Intelligence Service also operate at the National Agency for Fiscal Administration (ANAF), the Competition Council, the Office for the Prevention and Fight Against Money Laundering, the National Agency for Integrity (…)
- The trials in which officers of the Romanian Intelligence Service have personal or group interest, along with influential politicians and businessmen, are assigned to the prosecutors or judges who have collaborative relationships with officers of the Romanian Intelligence Service, failing to comply with Art. 11 and 139 of Law 304/2004 on the random distribution of files and continuation of the magistrate throughout the course of a trial.
Please also read about the noncompliance of the law by collaborating magistrates and the judge Colonel Constantin Udrea of the Military Court of Appeal (as evidenced also by Chapter II, Chapter V, item 3.8).
4) Officers of the intelligence services, along with prosecutors from the National Anticorruption Directorate, put pressure on and blackmail prosecutors and judges to obtain the dictated solutions.
Blackmailing the prosecutors and judges by the intelligence service officers along with DNA prosecutors
The prosecutors of 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 prosecutors, so that by pressure they can impose on them solutions dictated 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.
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, although in terms of the provision stipulated in Art. 7 par. 1, 2, 3 and 4 of the aforementioned 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. Please also read about the prosecutor Alexandra Carmen Lancranjan who ordered the solution of classification in the case 3164/P/2012 for deeds of tax evasion, after thousands of evidence disappeared from the file.
Another part of prosecutors and judges has agreed to collaborate and order the imposed solutions in cases. They have been promoted to management or executive positions in national structures or in Brussels
Please also read about judge R.R. Costea, page 15, Ionut Misa promoted as the Minister of Public Finance and the President of the National Agency for Fiscal Administration, the judge Magdalena Bulancea.
PROTOCOLS between the Romanian Intelligence Service, the Courts of Justice, the prosecutor’s offices and the state institutions
The Romanian Intelligence Service concluded PROTOCOLS to collaborate with the state institutions, the National Anticorruption Directorate, the Prosecutor’s Office attached to the High Court of Cassation and Justice, the High Court of Cassation and Justice, the courts of law, other prosecutor’s offices, the Competition Council, the Court of Accounts, the Fiscal Administration, the Office for Prevention and Fight Against Money Laundering, the National Agency for Integrity (and so on), have created the setting for the officers from the Romanian Intelligence Service to intervene directly at public servants, prosecutors, judges through direct and personal relations that would create pressure and blackmail to get the desired result.
The PROTOCOLS between the Romanian Intelligence Service (SRI) and 60 institutions, prosecutor’s offices, courts of justice represent a flagrant violation of the independence and impartiality of justice, established in Art.124 of the Constitution of Romania, in Art. 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and Art. 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights, a flagrant violation of interest, in collaboration partnerships with lawyers, prosecutors, judges, experts, public servants of ANAF or other institutions, with the result of obtaining the solutions they want, respectively solutions of classification and acquittal or solutions of accusation and conviction concerning certain individuals or legal entities.
The protocols concluded by the Romanian Intelligence Service with the Romanian institutions have been functioning for more than 10 years up to now, have produced negative effects, and their action has not been terminated by the Law, nor were measures to remedy the consequences ordered by the Law, consequences resulting from these protocols.
5) The lack of random distribution of files, the appointment or discretionary replacement of the prosecutor in the criminal prosecution and non-registration of files according to the legal provisions.
- The random distribution of files to the case prosecutor is missing at the prosecutor’s offices.
The fact that at prosecutor’s offices there is no random assignment of files to the prosecutor allows the interested individual to request or cause the Prime Prosecutor of the Prosecutor’s Office to assign the file of a preferred prosecutor who would meet certain requirements regarding the criminal prosecution.
- At prosecutor’s offices, the case prosecutors are replaced in noncompliance with Art. 64 par. 4 of Law 304/2004
The case prosecutor is replaced during the criminal prosecution in the cases where the criminal investigation is not carried out in harmony with the requirements of the individuals who actually manage and intervene in the criminal prosecution activities.
- At the prosecutor’s offices, the files are not recorded with the indicative “P”
Certain files do not receive a registration number with a “P” indicative according to the Internal Regulations of the Prosecutor’s offices in Art. 129 and the Regulation of the National Anticorruption Directorate at Art. 110 regulates that: “The registration number shall be accompanied by the “P” (criminal – Romanian: penal)”.
Both orders stipulate that when entering the prosecutor’s office, all files are assigned a registration number with the indicative “P”.
- The files of interest are held without being processed in the prosecutor’s offices
As it is not provided by the law to have completed the criminal prosecution with sanctions for the prosecutor, the files remain UNPROCESSED for very long periods, a situation that determines the intervention of the criminal liability prescription and the termination of the criminal trial.
6) The judicial inspection of the Superior Council of Magistracy does not ensure the random assignment of the complaints against magistrates, although Art. 69 par. (1) letter d) of Law 317/01.07.2004 states that “the chief inspector mainly meets the following duties: d) to take measures for the random assignment of the files during the Judicial Inspection;“ I exemplify Chapter V, item 8.9 of the CSM and Chapter V, item 9 Ministry of Justice.
7) The non-compliance with the Property right recognised in Art. 17 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and the right recognised in Art. 20 of Title III – Equality of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union as a result of the fact that the public authorities do not solve at all or formally solve notifications and petitions, and there are no provisions in the law that explicitly provide sanctions should the deadlines for the resolution recommendation not be met.
In conclusion, the PROPERTY is protected only if JUSTICE IS INDEPENDENT and if prosecutors and judges are impartial. However, in the light of the aforementioned considerations, depriving justice of independence deprivation of justice results in the dispossession of the private or state property in the cases where influential individuals have a private or group interest.
 Art. 11 of Law 304/2004: “the judgement activity shall be conducted in compliance with the principles of randomly assigning the files and continuity, except for the situations where the judge cannot participate in the trial for objective reasons”
 Art. 139 – (1) Through the Internal Regulations of the legal courts, the following are set: b) the way and criteria for assigning the cases by panels of judges, in order to ensure the compliance with the principles of random distribution and continuity;
 Art. 14 – (1) The President of the specialised court exercises the managerial duties for the efficient organisation of his activity, as well as the court administration, aiming at: i) monitors and is in charge with the random distribution of cases;
Art. 10 – (1) The President of the Court of Appeal exercises the managerial duties for the efficient organisation of the activity of the court, as well as the duties of coordination and control in relation to the administration of the court of appeal and the courts in the jurisdiction, as follows:
- f) monitors and is in charge with the random distribution of the cases, according to the law;
 Art. 64 (4) Law 304/2004: The works assigned to a prosecutor may be transferred to another prosecutor in the following situations: c) leaving the case to not be processed unjustifiably for more than 30 days.