ABOUT THE CORRUPTION IN ROMANIA, WHICH DESTROYS BUSINESSES AND LIVES
Chapter V Chapter VII
CHAPTER VI. INDIVIDUALS INVOLVED FROM INSTITUTIONS AND AUTHORITIES
1. OFFICIALS FROM ANAF
(1) Ionut MISA – as president in office in September 2018 at the National Agency for Fiscal Administration (ANAF) rejected on 31.08.2018 on a handwritten post-it “MEASURES WITHOUT THE DNA“
after a period of more than 100 days in the folder, the proposal of the Directorate for Integrity of ANAF on the internal investigation report of the DGI 2689/25.06.2018 containing also the notification of the National Anticorruption Directorate
- On 03.07.2018 we sent to the ANAF president the request no. 48051 (see the annex) and the request no. 161 of 19.07.2018 (see the annex), both petitions with no answers
- I also submitted to the same individual in 2014 the notification of 06.05.2014 (see the Annex) as well as the restoration of the requests that have been emailed on 08.09.2014 (see the Annex), while Ionut Misa held the position of General Manager of the DGAMC, the Directorate for Integrity, observed in 2016 according to the communication 3770/11.10.2016 that it is confirmed that the DGAMC during the Tax Inspection at Farmec did not take into account the notifications of the undersigned to the DGAMC
- The closeness of Ionut Misato Murfatlar-Euroavipo, the main supplier of undistorted alcohol to Farmec SA,
- Between 1998 and 1999 Ionut Misaworked for one year at AGROSERVICE SRL in Constanta County. In its turn, the Agroservice company was also a shareholder in another local company, Europlus SA Constanta, according to the data obtained by means of the termene.ro application. Another shareholding company within Europlus was Vitivinicola, which subsequently became LOOO, VIE VIN Murfatlar, the first piece in subsequently creating the Murfatlar – Euroavipo network. Murfatlar-Euroavipo is the main supplier of a quantity of 1,500,000 litres of refined undistorted alcohol to Farmec SA (see Annex 28 – explanations on alcohol purchase invoices, DAIs, preparation reports, supplier sealing reports, unsealing reports at the Beneficiary Farmec, reception notes at Farmec (NIRs) and Annex 350 – Explanatory Note and Annexes 11 and 12 to the Fiscal Inspection Report of 15.12.2014, accounting documents showing that the alcohol has not been distorted in violation of the provisions stipulated in Art. 200 and 206 of the Methodological Norms for Applying the Fiscal Code. The ANAF officials made an exception from the Law even to this day.
According to the DNA, the group of companies around the Murfatlar brands has damaged the public budget by 600 million lei between 2010 and 2014. During this period, the new minister of Finances, Ionuț Mișa, was the head of the Directorate of Public Finances within the National Agency for Fiscal Administration (ANAF). In other words, he had in the job description sheets – both for the position in Constanta and for the subsequent one in Bucharest – the responsibility to know what happens at Murfatlar.
The DNA investigators stated that, according to the data from the investigation of the National Anticorruption Directorate (DNA) on Murfatlar, the four shareholders – George Ivănescu, Emanuel Dobrănăuţeanu, Ion Serban, Dobrănăuţeanu and Cătălin Bucura – would have started to prejudice the state (in the period when the Ionut Mișa was in the management of the Fiscal Department of Constanța).
“During the period between 2010 and 2014, four companies with the activity of manufacturing and trading alcoholic beverages, owned or controlled by Ivănescu George, Bucura Cătălin and other individuals, caused a total damage of 597,218,168.7 6 lei (approximately 132 million Euros) to the state budget by theft from the payment of fiscal obligations. The criminal activity was carried out under the conditions where the public servants from the competent fiscal and customs authorities either failed to fulfil the actions they were bound to by the job tasks, or improperly fulfilled such actions”, the investigators said.
The prosecutors investigate in this file only the officials from the Department of Finances who have signed documents by which the state was injured by the Murfatlar group. Ionuţ Mişa is not investigated in this case, five senior officials from ANAF being suspect of abuse of office by which they supported the Murfatlar group to avoid paying the debts of hundreds of millions of lei.
- Between 1999 and 2004 Ionut Misawas promoted to the Department of Taxes and Duties at the City Hall of Constanta
- Finally, four years later, Ionut Misawas promoted to the position of Chief of the Public Administration of Constanta, after being appointed Chief of the Revenue Collection Guidance Service, Chief of the Service of Taxpayer Register and Chief of the Public Finance Administration of Eforie.
- In 2013, he was promoted as chief of the Directorate General for the Administration of Large Taxpayers, State Secretary at the Ministry of Public Finance, the Minister of Public Finance, the manager of the DGAMC and the president of ANAF.
- Excerpt from http://cetateanul.net/articol-principal/legaturile-ministrului-ionut-misa-cu-grupul-murfatlar-care-a-pagubit-statul-cu-600-de-milioane-de-lei/
Ion Theodor Popescu also known as Joni Popescu is a SRI general with 4 stars, Romanian, who has had the position of Deputy Director of the Romanian Intelligence Service, supported the appointment of Gelu Diaconu as head of the General Customs Directorate of Romania. The period between 1997 and 2009 when Gelu Diaconu was appointed as General Manager at the General Customs Directorate of Romania and vice-president of the National Customs Authority coincides with the initiation of the requests of Farmec o return the excise duties without Farmec to attach the documents stipulated by the Law on the actual consumption of alcohol in the manufacturing process but still, also in violation of the law, the officials of Farmec enjoyed from the customs officials of decisions to return the excise duties.
When the general was unable to support him anymore, he brought him as deputy to the of the Department of Appeals within the Ministry of Finance; then with fresh support, as vicepresident at the National Customs Authority, and after that he was promoted as president of the National Agency for Fiscal Administration (ANAF)
In the same period when he held the position of manager of the customs in Romania and vicepresident of the National Customs Authority, he built the International Hotel on his wife’s name, Mihaela Diaconu, in partnership with Costica Dumitrescu on the company Comity Prod Exim. Vasile Marica, the head of the ANAF union states in an article that the international hotel owned by Gelu Diaconu (former president of ANAF) has a value of 42 million Euros.
The company called Comity Prod Exim owned by Mihaela Diaconu and the off-shore company in Cyprus, Cartha Limited, are not included in the wealth and interest statements of Gelu Stefan Diaconu in the period when he served as president of the National Agency for Fiscal Administration (ANAF). The National Agency for Integrity has not carried out investigations in this regard.
The Dan Rusanu family are the godparents of the Gelu Diaconu family and the lawyer Alexandru Bogdan is a mutual person representing both the interests of the OFF-SHORE company KLARTECH LIMITED, a company belonging to the family Gelu and Mihaela Diaconu, and associate with one of the daughters of Dan Rusanu – Ruxandra Ana Rusanu in the Smart Hospitality Inc SRL company. The hotel with the same name, International, in Sinaia belongs to the companies of the Rusanu family. On the other hand, Alexandru Bogdan is also associated with Nicoleta Diaconu, the daughter of the Diaconu spouses, with whom he owns the Phadis Solution SRL in equal parts.
- Gelu Diaconu, as president of ANAF, was notified on 16.02.2015 with the request registered under the no. 9873 (see the annex) and in relation to the content of the fictitious and illicit operations at Farmec, specified in the request, he had no reaction, he did not order any real fiscal verification.
Gelu Diaconu, as Vice – President of the National Customs Authority and manager of the Customs Department, had under his subordination the Department for Monitoring the Excise Duties and Customs Operations, during the period in which the report of the Court of Accounts (www.cameradeputatilor.ro) observed that the customs officials within the Department for Monitoring the Excise Duties and Customs Operations returned the excise duties to Farmec SA in the absence of any verifications regarding the alcohol consumption in the manufacturing process, the same period that also covered the Fiscal Inspection Report drafted on December 15th, 2014, which was later cancelled as being illegal by the Court of Appeal of Cluj by the sentence 46/2015. The customs officials Ioan Rus, Ioan Gligor, Ioan Zadic who returned the excise duties to Farmec, during the president mandate of Gelu Diaconu at the DGAMC and drafted the formal fiscal inspection report (make-pretend), were transferred to the Department for Monitoring the Excise Duties and Customs Operations.
In his capacity as president of ANAF – on the date of the drafting several complaints and requests regarding the refusal of ANAF to verify the reality of the invoices issued by Farmec, which were subsequently cancelled, returned, unpaid and deleted from the accounting system, as well as of the fictitious registrations as a result of the purchases at Farmec SA of undistorted alcohol and not fully used in the manufacturing process, as well as the fact that the officials of Farmec SA obtain decisions for the return of the excise duties without verifications and without submitting the documents stipulated in item 22 Par. 34 of the Methodological Norms for the Application of the Fiscal Code – Gelu Diaconu ignored the undersigned’s petitions, including the documents and observations I submitted to his attention on the occasion of the petition registered on 16.02.2015 under the no. 9873 (see Annex 31)
This lack of any reaction from the former president of ANAF in exercising the attributes of this position could have the explanation in the existence of a certain personal interest in the context where his wife is a shareholder of COMITY PROD EXIM SRL, which conducted business relations with the company PRODVINALCO Cluj (alcoholic beverage manufacturer), during the period when Gelu Diaconu had a public position, respectively that of ANAF president or vice-president, under the conditions of a reasonable suspicion that this company received and used for the manufacture of spirits most of the of the quantity of alcohol purchased by Farmec SA under the excise duty exemption regime, but which has not been distorted and used in the manufacturing process of this company.
(4) Dragos Doros– president of the National Agency for Fiscal Administration, between 2016 and the beginning of 2017 did not solve the NOTIFICATION registered under the no. 62163/18.11.2016 (see Annex 285) and failed to conduct fiscal verifications at Farmec SA by the Fiscal Antifraud Directorate General and Fiscal Inspection, this attitude being explained by the fact that Dragos Doros, between May 2013 and March 2016, was a manager of KPMG Tax SRL, a company in the KPMG group, since 2011 until 2017, Farmec SA transferred to this group of companies amounts of money of approximately 40,000 Euros annually, of which we exemplify:
- to KPMG AUDIT SRL, in between 2011 and 2015, the amount of over 870,000 lei,
- to KPMG TAX SRL, between 2012 and 2015, the amount of over 43,000 lei
- to KPMG ROMANIA SRL in 2012, the amount of over 35,000 lei, although on 18.11.2010 I unsuccessfully proposed an auditor for an amount of only 5,000 Euros per year, a proposal rejected without any justification, under the conditions of maintaining some exaggerated payments to KPMG, which in fact, highlights payments that have other interests in subsidiary.
(5) Ioan Zadic, Ioan Gligor and Ioan Rusare officials of the ANAF headquartered in Cluj Napoca, who have been involved in illegal returns of excise duties to Farmec over time within the Directorate for Monitoring the Excise Duties and Customs Operations, without Farmec submitting the documents stipulated in the law and afterwards, the same individuals within the General Directorate for the Administration of Large Taxpayers to the “MAKE-PRETENT” manifested by the fiscal inspection conducted during the period when Gelu Stefan Diaconu was the president of ANAF. By the fiscal inspection report concluded on 15.12.2014 by the aforementioned inspectors of ANAF, they forced Farmec to pay the amount of 67,000,000 lei (15,000,000 Euros), knowing that the payment value does not have a legal justification, which is actually what happened because the Court of Appeal of Cluj, through the sentence 46/2016 (see the Annex), cancelled the fiscal inspection report as being illegal. Only that the well planned diversion of the three individuals Ioan Gligor, Ioan Rus and Ioan Zadic was done so they would not carry out verifications on the fictitious records by means of which they have been informed through the notification of 06.05.2014 (see the annex). But not even afterwards did the DGAMC want to carry out the verifications regarding the fiscal fraud at Farmec (see Annex 18 – the petition to the DGAMC of 14.09.2017) without any verifications and unsolved until now.
(6) Alin Ghiurca – Deputy Manager of the General Directorate for Fiscal Administration went to Cluj to “agree” with the inspectors Marcela Snador, Ioan Rus, Ioan Gligor and Ioan Zadic on the contents of the fiscal inspection report, under conditions likely to subsequently allow the cancellation of the RIF by the sentence 46/2016 of the Court of Appeal of Cluj (Annex 284).
The connivance of Alin Ghiurca with the authors of the RIF to achieve a formal fiscal control and to establish some unjustified payment obligations on Farmec, amounting to 67,064,505 lei results from the following considerations:
- The fiscal Inspection report states on the first page that the fiscal inspection was started following the notifications of the undersigned, according to the following excerpt:
- The fiscal control did not carry out cross verifications on the reality and legality of the fictitious operations that were mentioned by the undersigned in the notifications 68342 of 29.11.2011; No 34021 of 05.07.2012; no. 7565 of 14.02.2012; to the DGAMC under the no. 1149815 of 6.5.14, no. 1164267/27.6.14, no. 1177438 of 25.07.2014;
- By the communication of 11.10.2016 (see Annex 21), the Directorate for Integrity of ANAF confirmed that the officials of the DGAMC did not carry out verifications on the undersigned’s notifications, according to the excerpt: “the aspect you reported was confirmed, corroborated also with the large number of aspects signalled..”
- The fiscal control did not verify whether Farmec purchased non-excisable isopropyl alcohol, which was fully used for manufacturing cleaning products, as well as refined alcohol in a regime of excise duty exemption, in relation the excise duty refund scheme, in relation to which the fiscal Inspection report reveals that the purchased alcohol has not been distorted, although these operations contrary to the law have been specified in the undersigned’s notifications;
- From the Annexes 11 and 12 of the Fiscal Inspection Report, which were signed by the officials of Farmec and fiscal officials (see Annex 22 – Explanatory Note and Annexes 11 and 12 to the RIF), it appears that, although it was known that the officials of Farmec unjustifiably benefited from the exemption from excise duties for 1,500,000 litres of undistorted alcohol, the aforementioned fiscal officialshave not revealed the fact that the alcohol was not distorted and, even more so, based on intra-company consumption bills, non-fiscal documents, accredited the appearance that the undistorted alcohol has been used in the manufacturing process at Farmec SA, but intentionally violating the provisions of Art. 200 Par. 8 and Art. 206 of the Methodological Norms for the Application of the Fiscal Code, regarding the fact that the evidence reveal that 1,500,000 litres of refined alcohol, although it has not been distorted, it has benefited from the return of excise duties (see Annex 28 – Explanatory note on purchase invoices, DAIs NIRs, etc.)
(7) Ciuban Doru, Nicolae Campan, Laurentiu Suciu, Mihaela Ignea, Sabo Delia, Samboan Maria, Muresan Margareta, Andrei Ioan Haas, Vasilica Sandu, Carmen Augusta Patru, Claudia Emilia Gheorghe, Adrian Vlasceanu, Daniela Nita, as well as other officials from the Directorate for Monitoring the Excise Duties and Customs Operations have returned the excise duties in favour of Farmec SA without the officials of this company submitting the documents provided in item 22 par. 34 of the Methodological Norms for the Application of the Fiscal Code and without verifying the reality and legality of the actual consumption in the manufacturing process of the alcohol purchased under the regime of excise duty exemption (see Annex 9 – fiscal control reports and decisions on the return of excise duties).
(8) Cuc Mariana, Minuta Angela, Ratiu Rodica si Nicolae Ioan Horea (all of them with the residence in Cluj-Napoca), fiscal inspectors within the DGAMC – ANAF, have created the appearance of having carried a second fiscal control (which precedes the need for carrying out a general fiscal inspection), which resulted in drafting the report no. 31/21.06.2017 of the General Directorate for the Administration of Large Taxpayers, a control activity in which the aforementioned “PATTERN” was followed, in the sense that:
– The fiscal officials have ignored the observations of the Court of Accounts regarding the lack of verifications required by the law to be carried out when granting each excise duty exemption.
– Just like in the case of the fiscal control completed by the RIF of 15.12.2014, the fiscal officials did not carry out cross verifications on the reality and legality of the documents issued by Farmec, under the conditions where:
- during the period of 2007-2018, Farmec SA did not submit to the Department for Monitoring the Excise Duties and Customs Operations the documents stipulated in item 22 par. 34 of the Methodological Norms for the Application of Fiscal Code, but benefited from decisions of excise duty exemption, which were compensated monthly with the VAT due (see Annex 8 – excerpt from KPMG Annual Report);
- Farmec SA issued invoices with alcohol-containing products to customers in the country and abroad, which were not subsequently paid and were closed in the accounting system as non-deductible expenses and provisions in the amount of more than 70,000,000 lei;
- Farmec SA issued invoices with alcohol containing products to customers in the country and abroad, which were subsequently cancelled and returned, accounting for a percentage of 12-13% of the total of the invoices issued by Farmec, but these invoices do not appear to have been registered to customers based on NIR, and there is no evidence that the products have been reintroduced into the stock of Farmec’s management based on documents, respectively the reception note;
- Farmec SA has issued the accounting notes for tax purposes by non-deductible expenses that do not reflect the reality;
– The fiscal officials did not carry out verifications on the fictitious services paid to customers in the country and abroad, including lawyers, nor the transfer of amounts of money into the bank accounts of companies with offshore tax regime countries, by which the taxable profit of Farmec SA was reduced (see also item 19 on the National Office for the Prevention and Fight Against Money Laundering);
– The fiscal officials have not verified the reality and proportionality of the amounts of money from the legal assistance contracts between the company and lawyers and contracts between lawyers and officials of the joint stock company, did not reveal the values resulting from the legal assistance contracts concluded by the company with lawyers and to compare them with the legal assistance contracts concluded by the same lawyers with the administrators/managers of the company, as individuals, in the files where both the company and the company’s administrators or managers have the quality of party, accused, perpetrator or suspect, in order to reveal how the company’s funds are defrauded to the benefit of its administrators;
– The fiscal officials within the DGAMC who participated in the formal fiscal verifications of 15.12.2014 and 21.06.2017 have violated the provision in the Court of Accounts’ Report by which it was prohibited for the individuals who participate in future fiscal controls at Farmec SA to have their domicile in Cluj (see Annex 14 – excerpt from the report of the Court of Accounts on the illegal return of excise duties to Farmec SA – page 157):
“According to the Fiscal Procedure Code, ANV could request for the delegation of competences for the fiscal inspection to be carried out by the activity of fiscal inspection in another customs directorate, in order to eliminate any suspicion regarding the independence of the individuals performing this mission.”
The notification of 14.09.2017 (see Annex 18) and the DGAMC response communications (see Annex 19) to the Vice-President of the Fiscal inspection reveal the violation of the law by the fiscal officials.
(9) Andrei Haas, as a fiscal inspector, participated directly in the returns of excise duties at Farmec SA, after which he was promoted as manager of the Directorate of Public Finance in Cluj, then as manager of the General Directorate for the Administration of Large Taxpayers, the competences of which also include tax auditing activities on the activity of Farmec SA.
(10) Laurentiu Dan Pusderca, Director of the Antifraud Directorate Division 7 Sibiu within ANAF, failed to meet the orders of the central structure of the Fiscal Antifraud Directorate General, submitted on the occasion of the petition of 31.07.2017 (see Annex 288).
Laurentiu Dan Pusderca violated Art. 45 par. 2 of Law 188/1999 because he did not meet the orders of the hierarchical superior two times:
- On the occasion of non-observance of the order given by the Fiscal Antifraud Directorate General – the Central structure which, through the communication no. A.DAF 22496/01.08.2017 ordered to the Antifraud Directorate Division of Sibiu managed by Laurentiu Dan Pusderca: “..in preparing the action, you shall take into account the following objectives… 1. main objectives: …to analyse the legality and the reality of the documents that were underlying the decisions of exemption from the payment of excise duties ;… how to use the denatured or undistorted ethyl alcohol in the cosmetics manufacturing process, taking into account the production reports, consumption bills and other documents that were the basis of the output from the management… 2.Secondary objectives: verification of the operations originating from intra-community acquisitions and intra-community deliveries of goods/services as well as the verification of the supporting documents…. “
- On the occasion of failing to meet the order of the ANAF President at that time, who on the occasion of the petition of 14.02.2018 (see the Annex) ordered the Fiscal Fraud Directorate: “for the analysis and legal measures, with the proper analysis of all matters notified” on the DGAF request from the DGV of Farmec’s requests for the return of excise duties for the period of 2007-2018, control reports, return decisions and related documents on the actual consumption in manufacturing that were submitted by Farmec on the occasion of each request to return the excise duties.
Laurentiu Dan Pusderca, having the quality of General Manager of the General Customs Directorate, Gelu Diaconu appointed Laurentiu Dan Pusderca as regional customs manager in Brasov, and later as ANAF President, he appointed him as Deputy Director of the Fiscal Antifraud Directorate Division 7 of Sibiu, although Gelu Diaconu was informed about the quality of Laurentiu Dan Pusderca as defendant 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 the ANAF.
Laurentiu Dan Pusderca is the longest-running manager of the Fiscal Antifraud Directorate, who has “resisted” throughout all the periods of time when all the managers of the Fiscal Antifraud Directorate have been replaced many times, the only one who has always remained in office as Deputy Director of the Antifraud Division of Sibiu, the “gratitude” being expressed by him through the decision to classify the petition no. 856/14.09.2017, after only five days after reception, without any fiscal control or cross verifications regarding the fiscal frauds being carried out, which were 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 gave rise to the issuance of each request for the return of excise duties and each decision to return the excise duties (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 maintaining his position as Deputy Manager of the Regional Division of Sibiu and continuing the frauds at Farmec SA. Please also read about Laurentiu Dan Pusderca and his brother lawyer in the cases where Laurentiu Dan Pusderca exercises or not his duties as the Manager of ANAF. (Chapter VI, items 1, 10)
Laurentiu Dan Pusderca has the following vulnerabilities, which do not exclude the vitiation of the fiscal control, especially it was delayed for eight months (see Annex 289 – communication no. 13113/17.10.2018, signed by Dan Laurentiu Pusderca):
– he was manager of the Brasov customs structure, which also includes the Department for Monitoring the Excise Duties and Customs Operations, which, through colleagues, chiefs and people close to Laurentiu Dan Pusderca, who are part of a large group of interests, has illegally returned the excise duties to Farmec SA since 2007 – up to today;
– it is publicly well-known that his brother, Adrian Pusderca, is a lawyer at the Brasov Bar and, in this quality, he participates in cases and lawsuits where Laurentiu Dan Pusderca is involved as a public servant of ANAF, such as, for example, the case no. 481/64/2009/a1 of the Court of Appeal of Brasov, with the parties SC Rolem SRL, through lawyer Pusderca Adrian, the plaintiff, and the DEPARTMENT FOR EXCISE DUTIES CUSTOMS OPERATIONS OF BRAŞOV – as defendant, in which the request for investment with the enforceable formula formulated against the state institution was admitted;
– through the criminal sentence no. 1322/02.07.2013, ruled in the case no.4156/197/2013, on the basis of Art.278 ¹ par. 8 letter b Code of Criminal Procedure, the Court House of Brasov, “admits the request of the plaintiff The National Customs Authority, through the Regional Department for Excise Duties and Customs Operations of Braşov filed against the resolution of the Prosecutor’s Office attached to the High Court of Cassation and Justice – the National Anticorruption Directorate – the Braşov Territorial Service, of 11.12.2012, ruled in the case no. 11/P/2012 which it abolishes and sends the case to the prosecutor in order to initiate the criminal prosecution against Pusdercă Laurentiu Dan…”;
– it can be noticed that Dan Laurentiu Pusderca still analyses the fiscal risk, although I have presented enough documents to him, wherefrom it results that Farmec SA monthly drafts applications and receives decisions on the return of excise duties, without submitting the accounting documents regarding the actual consumption of alcol in the manufacturing process, as set out in item 2233 par. (34) of the Methodological Norms for the Application of the Fiscal Code (see Annex 9 – Requests for the return, fiscal control reports, decisions to return excise duties)
From the perspective of these considerations, we cannot disassociate the obvious refusal of Mr Laurentiu Dan Puşdercă to request from Farmec SA and from the Directorate for Monitoring the Excise Duties the photocopy of the file on each return of excise duties of refined alcohol for the period of 2007-2018 and the performance of cross verifications on the reality and legality of the documents submitted by Farmec SA by the fact that Mr. Laurenţiu Dan Puşdercă was the only manager maintained in the year 2017 by the antifraud regional department to make these legal amendments in accordance also with the petitions to the President of ANAF of 04.01.2018 (see Annex 290) and 14.02.2018 (see Annex 27). Maintaining Mr. Dan Laurenţiu Pusdercă in this position coincides with his refusal to request cross verifications, a copy from the Department for Monitoring the Excise Duties and Customs Operations and from Farmec SA the requests for the return, control reports and the decisions to return the excise duties regarding each return to Farmec SA of alcohol excise duties corresponding to the period of 2007-2018.
Through L.D. Pusderca, the “fraud” of Farmec was protected by returns of excise duties, because the notifications of the undersigned dated 31.07.2017 and 14.09.2017 were passed from the Antifraud Directorate Division of Oradea, to the anti-fraud division of Sibiu and L.D. Pusderca failed to fulfil the mandatory provisions given through the communication A.DAF 22496/01.08.2017 by the Fiscal Antifraud Directorate General, the central structure containing the main objectives and secondary objectives. Failing to comply with the orders of the hierarchically superior chief, it is self understood that L.D. Pusderca draws the non-observance of the Law provided for in Art. 45 par. 2) of Law 188/1999. Please also read about Laurentiu Pusderca’s practice to carry out or not fiscal controls and the lawyer of the economic agent is his brother, Adrian Pusderca (Chapter VI, Item 1 (10)
(11) Raluca Dragan, was promoted to the position of deputy manager of the Legal Department of ANAF, considering that he participated directly as legally delegated representative of ANAF, party in the criminal case 3164/P/2012 of the Prosecutor’s Office attached to the Tribunal of Bucharest, and did not exercise his job duties through requests to the Prosecutor’s Office or to the Police by which to request the performance of the criminal investigation, the administration of the evidence that disappeared from the file, although it has been informed through communications by the undersigned (see Annex 41 – the undersigned’s communications to the Legal Department of ANAF).
In this criminal case, Raluca Dragan did not request from the prosecutor’s office nor from the court to clarify the situation related to the lack of a quantity of 26,000 litres of alcohol, highlighted even in the expertise signed by the appointed expert Mândru Gheorghe and the advisor expert of Farmec SA, Vulpoi Marcel, a quantity equal to the quantity of denaturant not registered in the management of Farmec and which corresponds to 1,500,000 litres of excisable alcohol, as it results also from the report of the Financial Guard – the General Commissariat (see Annex 286), resulting in a loss of 8,280,667.26 Euros, as a result of the lack of the denaturant, observed through the opinion of the same case file of the expert Violeta Radu (see Annex 287).
Raluca Dragan ignored the undersigned’s requests to the Legal Department of the ANAF (see Annex 41 – Requests of 01.11.2014 and 14.11.2014), as well as those submitted to the same directorate, through the communications 913378/19.05.2016 and no. 48597/16.09.2016 (see Annex 41), regarding the fact that the criminal prosecution file no. 3164/P/2012, on the dockets of the Tribunal of Bucharest, only had two volumes of the 60 volumes representing the criminal prosecution file at the Prosecutor’s Office (according to the communication of the prosecutor’s office no. 100674/12.03.2014 – see Annex 40) as representative of ANAF – injured party, did not request the court to restore the criminal file in order to rule a thorough and legal decision, a circumstance in relation to which the Tribunal of Bucharest maintained the classification ordinance issued by the Prosecutor’s Office, in the absence of the evidence that disappeared from the case file, but also in the absence of the entire criminal investigation file consisting of 60 volumes and without carrying out any criminal investigations on the observations of the Court of Accounts.
(12) Marian Stefanescu, as officer of the Romanian Intelligence Service and general manager of General Directorate for Integrity within ANAF, failed to request from the Customs Directorate the documents regarding the fraud between 2007 and 2018, from the Fiscal Control Directorate to indicate the amount of the prejudice as a result of the practice specified in the petition of the undersigned to the DGAMC on 14.09.2017 (see the Annex) and to notify the Prosecutor’s Office under Art. 291 Code of Criminal Procedure.
- Marian Stefanescu is an officer of the Romanian Intelligence Service, UM 0472. As General Director of the General Directorate for Integrity within ANAF, has violated the provisions of the law stipulated in Art. 45 par. 2 of law 188 because he failed to fulfil the provisions of the ANAF president, which which were given on the occasion of the undersigned’s petition on 14.02.2018 (see the Annex) and in Art. 291 par. 1. Code of Criminal Procedure, because he did not request all the evidence from the Customs Directorate regarding the returns of Farmec for the return of excise duties, the fiscal control reports and the decisions for the return since the period of 2007-2018, did not request the quantification of the amount of the damage within the DGAMC Fiscal Control Directorate and did not notify the DNA with all the evidence.
Marian Stefanescu, coordinator of the General Directorate for Integrity also rejected the request of the undersigned of 12.12.2017 by which I requested the replacement of the inspector Georgeta Craciun because she delays the completion of the internal investigation, did not seek for individuals within the ANAF directorates to provide the documents that has been initially requested through communications, to summon for hearings the individuals who have been summoned and refused, circumstances that favoured the continuation of the frauds, the prescription intervention, and the non-recovery of some prejudices. I have informed according to the provision specified in Art. 291 Code of Criminal Procedure⁵ par. 1, in the case where the head of the unit (the person in charge with the management position within a public administration authority) has become aware, in the period between 2007 -2018, of an offense for which the criminal action is initiated ex officio, is bound to take the legal measures that the traces of the offense do not disappear, respectively, in this present case, to request from the Department for Monitoring the Excise Duties and Customs Operations a photocopy of each file for the return of excise duties since 2007 – 2018, requests for the return of excise duties, reports on the return and decisions on the return and the related documents on the actual consumption of alcohol as stipulated in item 22³³ par. 34 of the Methodological Norms for the Application of the Fiscal Code, the corpora delicti and any other means of evidence to not disappear, then to immediately notify the Prosecutor’s Office.
Thus, in the internal investigation of the activity of ANAF officials, I have brought to the attention of the Directorate General for Integrity, in the notifications of 12.12.2017 (see Annex 25), 09.01.2018 (see Annex 29) and 14.02.2018 (see Annex 27) to request the Directorate for Monitoring the Excise Duties and Customs Operations, in photocopy, the file of each return of excise duties since the period of 2007-2018, namely the requests for the return and the related documents, the fiscal control reports for the return of excise duties and the decisions of return and then to notify the Prosecutor’s Office taking into account that I have submitted some examples of requests for the return, which benefit from the return of excise duties without Farmec submitting the documents provided for by the law in item 22 par. 34 of the Methodological Norms for the Application of the Fiscal Code (see Annex 9 – requests for return, fiscal control reports and decisions for the return of excise duties).
The Directorate for Integrity of ANAF did not request from the General Customs Directorate a photocopy of each file for the return since the period of 2007 – 2018, respectively requests for the return of excise duties, fiscal control reports and related documents, the decisions for return and related documents, and has not notified the PROSECUTOR’S OFFICE about this EVIDENCE in compliance with Art. 291⁵ Code of Criminal Procedure, although I have sent to the General Directorate for Integrity (see Annex 25) documents from which it results that the Farmec officers did not submit to the Department for Monitoring the Excise Duties and Customs Operations the documents provided by the Law. The Directorate for Integrity did not notify the Fiscal Control Directorates, the Antifraud Directorate General and the DGAMC to carry out appropriate fiscal controls.
(13) Georgeta Craciun, inspector for integrity, was permanently during the internal investigation under the guidance of Adrian Dinu, who was brought by delegation from the Romanian Intelligence Service. Georgeta Craciun requested from directorates the documents, information, hearings of people in relation to which she considered necessary, useful and conclusive to the internal investigation, but the activities were not fulfilled during the internal investigation
- Georgeta Craciunoverlooked the inaction and the formal and illegal activity of the individuals within the fiscal control directorates, the Directorate for the Administration of Large Taxpayers (DGAMC) and the Fiscal Antifraud Directorate General, which coincides with the protection of the frauds, the refusal of subordination by the DGAF regarding the fulfilment of the provisions of the central structure that were given upon the occasion of the note for guidance of 30.08.2017 and the non-recovery of the damages.
- The inspector for integrity violated the provision stipulated in Art. 45 par. 2 of the Law 188, failed to subordinate to the hierarchic superior, respectively to the order of the ANAF president, which was given on the occasion of the petition of 14.02.2018 registered under the no. 633, which ordered legal measuresregarding the request from the Customs Directorate for the copy of each file for return, respectively Farmec’s requests for the return of excise duties and related documents, fiscal control reports, decisions of ANAF for return since the period of 2007-2018, in the context where, although Farmec did not submit the documents stipulated by the law, the Department for Monitoring the Excise Duties and Customs Operations illegally ordered the return of excise duties. In relation to the resulting prejudice, the inspector for integrity did not request from the Fiscal Control Directorate DGAMC to determine the value of ANAF’s prejudice as a result of the fact that Farmec did not submit the documents provided by the law on the occasion of each request for the return of excise duties and as a result of the fictitious operations specified in the petition to the DGAMC on 14.09.2017 (see the Annex), without verifications to date.
- The inspector for integrity did not request the fiscal control directorate to determine the amount of the resulting damage, the reduction of the taxable profit of Farmec, as a result of the fact that:
- The officials of Farmec did not submit the documents provided by the law, and yet ANAF returned the the excise duties;
- Farmec noted down and recorded by non-deductible expenses the invoices not paid for, in and amount exceeding 15,000,000 Euros, products which in reality were not delivered. The invoices not collected are fictitious operations and were issued to create the appearance of using the alcohol, ANAF being prejudiced as a result of the fact that the officials of Farmec have monthly compensated the VAT on the payment with the equivalent value of the excise duties that have been paid simultaneously with the alcohol procurement, and Farmec being prejudiced by the quantity of unused alcohol and the equivalent value of the 16% unjustified tax.
- The officials of Farmec issued invoices with alcohol containing products, of which 10-12% of the invoices issued were then cancelled and returned monthly without the products being registered with NIRs to customers and the products being reintroduced into the management of Farmec,
- The officials of Farmec recorded by non-deductible expenses the accounting notes for tax purposes of large quantities of raw materials and finished products that do not reflect the actual operations,
- The officials of Farmec have recorded by non-deductible expenses the suspiciously fictitious services amounting to tens of millions of Euros – money transfers in the country, in European countries and to companies with OFFSHORE regime. These amounts of money have reduced the taxable profit of Farmec SA.
- DGAMC refused to perform real and not apparent cross verifications on the reality and legality of these illegal operations,
- The officials of the Directorate for Integrity of ANAF, although they have been informed by the notification of 12.12.2017, did not request the DGAMC Control Directorate of ANAF to carry out these cross verifications because much of the money ended up in the pockets of some politicians, public servants, which contributes to maintaining this “business” by defrauding Farmec, the state and the undersigned.
- The officials of Farmec transferred millions of Euros to lawyers, who equally also defended the officials of Farmec as individuals in civil or criminal cases. Please also read the petition to DGAMC of 14.09.2017 (Annex) without verifications.
(14) Mirela Fitarau– head of the service in the Division for Integrity of ANAF, from the perspective of the fact that the internal investigation lasted more than two and a half years, did not carry out an analysis together with the inspector for integrity and the manager of the directorate and did not order mandatory and non-limiting measures regarding the activities to be taken into account in the internal investigation regarding the ANAF officials, mandatory deadlines for the performance and verifications regarding the performance in due time of the activities and the observance of the performance deadlines in stages.
(15) Daniel Diaconescu– Deputy Director of the Directorate for Integrity of ANAF is an officer of the Romanian Intelligence Service, was appointed Deputy Director of the Directorate for Integrity of ANAF, although he has the procedural quality of suspect in the criminal case on the Euroavipo/Murfatlar business, instrumented by the National Anticorruption Directorate, and Euroavipo was the main refined alcohol supplier of Farmec, to which it delivered a quantity of 1,500,000 litres of refined alcohol with a concentration of 96.5%, which was not distorted (see Annex 28 – documents highlighting that the alcohol that was purchased by Farmec from Euroavipo has not been distorted – explanatory note, DAIs, purchase invoices, preparation reports, seal reports to suppliers, seal reports to beneficiaries, NIRs). 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).
(16) Adrian Dinu – SRI officer – delegated to the Directorate for Integrity, participated with the Inspector for integrity with the result of delaying the performance of an analysis, although difficult to understand through the analysis of the dall ranks, while it can easily be seen from the analysis of the quantities that although the denaturant is missing, the ANAF officials have returned the excise duties in violation of Art. 200 and Art. 206 of the Methodological Norms for the Application of the Fiscal Code corresponding to huge quantities of undistorted refined alcohol usable to manufacture vodka (see Annex 28 – explanatory note, purchase invoices, preparation reports, supplier sealing reports, NIRs).
(1) Claudiu Brehar, a lawyer from the Cluj Bar, received from Farmec SA amounts of money that exceed 2,000,000 lei, the equivalent value of 500,000 Euros, and lawyer Ziadin Denis, also a defender of Farmec SA, including in the file from the Tribunal of Constanta, received the amount of more than 700,000 lei. The discrepancy between the fees of the two lawyers, who equally divide their effort to represent Farmec in court, suggests that lawyer Claudiu Brehar (who, not coincidently, has the same name as that of a judge from the High Court of Cassation and Justice) also has other “merits” than those related to the lawyer’s performance.
Lawyer Claudiu Brehar, seconded by lawyer Denis Zadin, succeeded to record the remarkable success of convicting the judges and the experts appointed in the files to ignore and violate the legal provisions governing the performance of the fair trial and even the courts’ own orders that were given in files.
Here are just a few examples:
1) In file no. 802/1285/2016 of the Court of Appeal of Cluj, the lawyers convinced the panel of judges consisting of magistrates Andrei Axente Irinel and Veres Roxana Mihaelathat, against the provisions of Art. 519 and 520 Code of Civil Procedure, to not send the case to the High Court of Cassation and Justice, in order to clarify a matter of law, invoking that it would not be a new matter, a statement not grounded from the perspective of the fact that there are contradictory decisions in relation to the problem of law in question, which should be clarified unitarily by the ICCJ (see Annex 206 – notification to the ICCJ) and the magistrates have “embraced” the wrong statements of the lawyers, rejecting the request to notify the ICCJ (see Annex 291 – closure of 23.06.2018), violating the right to a fair trial, which would ensure the protection of my right to property.
2) In the file 442/1285/2017 of the Specialised Tribunal of Cluj, the lawyers convinced the magistrate Ancuta Pavelescu, on the hearing deadline of 29.11.2017, to reject the action summoning on the illegality of introducing a limitation threshold in the Farmec’s statutes, even though the decision violates the European law (see Annex 292) and Art. 33 par. 4 of the Second Council Directive of 2012, according to which “The right of pre-emption may not be restricted or withdrawn by statutes or instrument of incorporation…”, which means prohibiting by the statutes the limitation of the undersigned’s right to subscribe new shares issued by Farmec.
3) In the case 3414/1285/2011 of the Specialised Tribunal of Arges, the lawyers convinced the magistrates to ignore their own decision that the appointed expert “to prove that all the documents have also come into the possession of the party experts”, which had been adopted on the deadline of 22 June 2016;
Although on the hearing date of 27.04.2016 the Tribunal fined the Farmec company for failing to submit the documents requested by the party experts Violeta Radu and Elena Vaduva, on the hearing deadline of 06.12.2016, the lawyers convinced the judge Roxana Cristina Baraila to reject the objections of the undersigned, under the conditions where, on the one hand, the expertise does not highlight the reality, and, on the other hand, the counsellor experts VR and VE were blocked to draw up the opinion in the absence of the required documents and presented to the court a Note on the impossibility to draft the expertise report (see Annex 164) because they did not receive the requested documents, the circumstance observed also by Judge Valer Copae on the hearing date of 30.03.2016, when he sanctioned and forced the defendant Farmec to comply with the order to provide the party experts with the documents not communicated to them.
On the hearing deadline of 10.10.2017, at the Court of Appeal of Pitesti, the appeal panel consisting of the magistrates Fundatureanu Adina, Vaduva Dumitru and Vilvoi Denisa came to the session room so well “convinced”, that even in the opening of the trial session, the first words pronounced were “today the court postpones ruling the case…”, which is an ante-ruling regarding the request for evidence with documents, the court creating the “conviction” regarding the rejection of this request before being discussed in contradiction in the session room, with the consequence of also rejecting the action, because on the same day, the panel that judged the request for recusal would be just as “convinced”, insisting to judge the request for recusal (see Annex 241) without the plaintiff submitting the evidence of the receipt (see Annex 240 – Note with the transcript of the trial hearing session).
4) In the case 1021/1285/2016 of the Specialised Tribunal of Cluj, the lawyers convinced the magistrate R. Costea to reject all the requests, going on the same prefigured trajectory of rejecting the action, even if the decision violates Art. 33 par. 4 of the Second Council Directive, specified above, and Art. 217 par. 1 of Law 31/1990.
5) In the case 1021/1285/2016 of the Specialised Tribunal of Cluj, the panel of judges consisting of magistrate Daniela Hamciucrejected her superior’s request for recusal (see Annex 202), mentioning that the request was formulated in bad faith, wrongly reasoning that in the file the provision stipulated in Art. 11 of Law 304/2004 was met, although the reason for recusal resulted from the circumstance that the file was not randomly assigned, in the correct meaning of the law, the random assignment implies the simultaneous fulfilment of the provisions stipulated in Art. 83 and 93 of the CSM Decision no. 387/2005, and Art. 11 of Law 304/2004 and therefore cannot be covered by the introduction of the file into the ECRIS system with a delay of one day as of the date of filing the case at court at a time when the order of the panels of judges is known, which could receive the said file, as it is possible to assign by dedication to a particular panel of judges.
Obviously unjustified, in relation to the considerations presented above and to the content of the request for recusal, the magistrate Daniela Hamciuc imputed to the plaintiff the lack of good faith, although the entire judicial process must start and be carried out under the auspices of the magistrate’s good faith and impartiality, nonexistent in this case, under the conditions where the undersigned, I promoted the action and have the full interest in benefiting from a decision made under the conditions of complying with the law and only my opponents are interested in judging quickly and rejecting the action by anticipating the result of violating the principle of random assignment, respectively the rejection of my requests, which exclusively sought finding out the truth in this case.
6) Lawyer Claudiu Brehar received from Farmec a fee of more than 2,000,000 lei, after also entering in the file 1514/1285/2012 from the Tribunal of Constanta, he managed to convince Judge Adrian Oprea, on the hearing deadline of 21.02.2018 to not fulfil his own decision he gave on the hearing deadline of 26.01.2018 to the appointed expert, lawyers and defendant, according to the excerpt from the conclusion (see Annex 211 – the conclusion of 26.01.2018) and to accept that the defendant Farmec SA would not file the register of shares and the register of shareholders with the payments, information which Art. 177 par. 1 of the Law 31/1990 stipulates, which the judge has approved as conclusive and useful evidence in the file, and the judge to accept that the shares used for voting have been subscribed although the defendant submitted requests for subscription for only 224,000 shares of the total of 649,000 shares in 1995 and the shares have been paid although the expert specified that he did not receive the documents (receipts, payment orders) that would prove the shareholders’ payment for the account of shares, in the context where the ICCJ, by the decision 2930/2008 (see the Annex) has ruled with the force of res judicata that the shares paid are those shares that have been paid by the shareholders (see Annex 351 – written notes in file 1514 submitted on the hearing deadline of 03.10.2018)
- The lawyer Claudiu Breharmanaged to convince the judge to accept the expertise without solving the objective 1, in the absence of the documents requested by the appointed expert, as the expert specifies on page 9 from the expertise, according to the excerpt: “I mention that, in terms of the payment documents, the defendant has not provided the experts with all the documents by which the payments were made (deduction payrolls, bonus payrolls, receipts, payment orders, etc.)…” and
- Judge Adrian Opreato replace the appointed expert with the specification that the appointed expert received the documents requested from the defendant, although the appointed expert specified in the expertise that he did not receive the documents requested.
7) In the case 1129/1285/2016 of the Specialised Tribunal of Cluj, the lawyers convinced the magistrate Flavius Motu – THE WEDDING GODFATHER of one of the managers of Farmec SA – to not comply with the provision stipulated by Art. 42 par. 1 item 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure and to not refrain from solving the case, ignoring the connection that diminishes his impartiality and the incompatibility, and subsequently, that judge was convinced to keep Horea Turdean in the position of administrator, the brother of one of the defendants, even though he is incompatible.
In addition, the lawyers have been able to convince the magistrate to “solve the action” by admitting the exception to the “the plaintiff’s lack of interest”, even though there are many indications and evidence that the administrators have harmed my company and my interests of significant shareholder, which excludes the “lack of interest” invoked and was requiring that the magistrate would immediately bring to the file the evidence that would contribute to finding out the truth and order the administrators to jointly assume liability.
8) the circumstance that magistrates from the Courts in Cluj County allow lawyer Claudiu Brehar to formulate his defences in the trials from the court desk intended for the SESSION PROSECUTOR justifies my suspicion that the magistrates are aware that the lawyer of Farmec represents the prolongation of the influence and will of some intelligence service officers, before the courts.
9) lawyer Claudiu Breharreceived the amount of 1,700,000 lei from the International AIRPORT of Cluj (see Annex 293) and the amount of 132,000 lei from the Cluj County Council, although these state/public institutions have legal assistance ensured by several legal counsellors with a permanent labour contract, and the Cluj Bar has several lawyers. What could be the reasons why lawyer Claudiu Brehar is preferred?
10) High position connections? The lawyer Claudiu Breharhas received more than 1,800,000 lei from TRANSFEROVIAR companies controlled by Mitica Calin and in a photo posted on the internet, there are Mitica Calin, Cosmin Gusa, Rares Bogdan, Octavian Hoandra and Eduard Hellvig – the Director of the Romanian Intelligence Service.
(2) The Biris Goran civil law firm was a lawyer of Farmec SA in the case 12283/3/2016, against ANAF, but also served as secretary minister in the Ministry of Public Finance between April 2016 and September 2016, and in 2016, Farmec SA transferred over 2,500,000 lei to the company of this lawyer.
(3) The Musat & Asociatii Civil Law Firm, where Gheorghe Buta is also a partner, a former judge at the ÎCCJ – the Commercial Department, received over 500,000 lei from Farmec SA based on some contracts for the case 6493/90/2011 from the Court of Appeal of Arges (a single trial deadline) and subsequently to the ICCJ, as well as for the case 1516/1285/2012 from Court of Appeal of Cluj (a trial deadline).
(4) The Tuca, Zbarcea and Asociatii civil law firm, through the lawyers Ioana Hrisafi and Cornel Popa defended the interests of Colgate Palmolive throughout the litigation in the civil case and in the criminal case where the Competition Council was part of or should have been part of and transferred the amount of 400,000 lei to Gheorghe Musliu’s account immediately after he resigned from the position of antitrust vice president of the Competition Council, under the conditions where during the period of exercising this mandate, the antitrust vice-president rejected the legal investigations and failed to fulfil the legal decisions by which the Competition Council was forced to open an investigation in the case of Colgate Palmolive based on the complaint of Prestige SRL.
1) Augustin Lazăr, the General Prosecutor of the Prosecutor’s Office attached to the High Court of Cassation and Justice.
- The General Prosecutor of the PICCJ was notified by e-mail (see Annex 294) with the Note of public information of 17.10.2017 (see Annex 77) in relation to operations that are circumscribed to some GROUPS OF INTERESTS set up to act in a concerted and directed manner over a period of more than 10 years, for the purpose of committing more than one offense, such as forgery in statements, forgery in the company’s documents, use of forgery, tax evasion, money laundering, embezzlement, etc., but the general prosecutor ignored the provisions of Art. 292 Code of Criminal Procedure, according to which he had the OBLIGATION to NOTIFY ex officio and decline the file to the competent prosecutor’s office.
- The General Prosecutor of the PICCJ, as hierarchically superior prosecutor, was notified by the petition of 27.11.2017, to which I attached the complaint and the notifications to the DNA, regarding the failure of this prosecutor’s office unit to meet the obligation of recording under a number with the indicative “P”, according to Art. 129 of the Internal Regulations of the Prosecutor’s Offices and Art. 110 of the Regulations of the National Anticorruption Directorate, the complaint, notifications and denunciation of the undersigned, to be solved by conducting criminal investigations, but under the signature of a Prosecutor Chief of the Division within the PICCJ, by the communication of 21.12.2017 (see Annex 81), I was informed that the petition had been sent to the DNA without any verification and no action was ordered regarding the irregularities notified.
(1) The notifications and complaints as a result of defrauding the state, the Farmec company and the undersigned.
Farmec SA transferred to the Alpiq Industries Company, which was related to Nicolae Bogdan Buzaianu, more than 3,800,000 lei, the equivalent value of 900,000 Euros, the individual Elena Udrea mentioned in the press (see Annex 295): “Buzaianu spent holidays, a few years ago, perhaps even now, on the Cote d’Azur with prosecutors from the DIICOT and the DNA. When needed, I’ll also have some names… Prosecutors also took part at the meals or in the vacations of Mr. Buzaianu on Cote d’Azur. That they were friends or were simply in Mr. Buzaianu‘s entourage, as a result of the problems that he has, is to be seen.”
From this perspective, I believe that the National Anticorruption Directorate, led by the Chief Prosecutor Laura Codruta Kovesi, has not removed the influences of the group of interests, has not recorded the undersigned’s notifications, of the DGA-MAI and Antifraud – ANAF with a criminal case number, has not carried out criminal investigations IN REM and individuals at Farmec SA between 2007 and 2018 from the Department for Monitoring the Excise Duties and Customs Operations, has not performed hearings, not requested evidence from the ANAF Directorates, has not investigated the connection between the magistrates’ abuses, violating the provisions of Art. 129 of the Internal Regulations of the Prosecutor’s Offices and Art. 110 of the Regulations of the National Anticorruption Directorate, as well as the provisions governing the performance of a civil or criminal trial.
During the chief prosecutor mandate of Laura Codruta Kovesi, the DNA was notified by the DGA within the Ministry of the Interior, the Antifraud Directorate of ANAF and by the undersigned regarding the same deeds of corruption of some officials from Farmec SA, with the participation of customs officers from the Department for Monitoring the Excise Duties and Customs Operations returned the excise duties to Farmec SA between 2007 and 2018, without Farmec SA submitting documents on the actual consumption stipulated in item 22 ³⁴ par. 34 of the Methodological Norms for the Application of the Fiscal Code (see Annex 9) – examples of requests for return, reports for return and decisions for the return) and without having to carry out verifications on this consumption, the invoices issued by Farmec and registered to customers, as well as the manufacturing recipes on the consumption and type of the alcohol used, although the prejudice caused to the state budget exceeds 276,000,000 lei, the equivalent value of more than 60,000,000 Euros.
In these circumstances, it is not surprising that the fraudulent actions of the officials of Farmec SA, with the participation of customs officials, were subsequently protected by certain officials from state institutions and authorities, but also by some magistrates who violated legal provisions specific to each an area of activity of these national structures, with the result of continuing the deeds of prejudicing the state, the company and the undersigned, and the non-recovery of these prejudices so far.
(2) Laura Codruta Kovesi, as General Prosecutor of the PÎCCJ, by the resolution no. 3626/2007, took over the criminal case no. 9016/2005 of the Prosecutor’s Office attached to the Court House of Sector 1 in Bucharest, subsequently ordered the closure thereof, as a result of the steps taken by Blair L. Labarge and Robert J. Tate, economic advisers of the US Embassy in Bucharest, both in relation to the officials of the Competition Council, and to the General Prosecutor’s Office of Romania to close any investigations in relation to the non-observance of the Law by Colgate Palmolive in Romania and by the public servants who ensure the protection of the anti-competitive activities of this company.
(3) Although by the resolution no. 3626/29.08.2007 (see Annex 85), Laura Codruta Kovesi reasoned that the case would have presented an “increased degree of complexity…“, within the Prosecutor’s Office attached to the High Court of Cassation and Justice, the criminal case was closed after a short while, without any further criminal prosecution activity, after at the competent Prosecutor’s Office PJS1 of Bucharest, the criminal prosecution was initiated against the members of the Competition Council plenum, the investigation rapporteur and an expertise was drawn up by which a loss of 2,100,000 lei VAT excluded had been observed, the equivalent value of 800,000 Euros at that time, recorded by the undersigned company in a short period of time (6 months), as well as the illegal deed of applying a fine of 1,500,000 lei to the undersigned company as a result of refusing to accept the request made by two officials of the Competition Council to withdraw our complaints against the Colgate-Palmolive and Kraft Foods companies, addressed to this institution.
It is worth mentioning that during that period, the General Prosecutor Laura Codruta Kovesi, together with the prosecutor counsellor Marius Bulancea (who was also promoted to the DNA) had a meeting with Mark Gitenstein, US Ambassador to Bucharest (according to the photo – see Annex 296) and Joseph R. Bean Biden III Prosecutor General of Delaware State in the USA, which hosts most OFFSHORE companies, including Colgate-Palmolive, with a number of 15 subsidiaries recorded.
(4) Laura Codruta Kovesi, having on 26.02.2015 the position of Chief Prosecutor of the National Anticorruption Directorate, when we sent the petition to the European Parliament, the Commission for Petitions and to the DNA, did not have any measures to verify any of the issues of this petition, although it contains information about giving and receiving large amounts of money by individuals who are related to officials from the management of the Competition Council and to the investigations undergoing at this institution, deeds which, according to the legal norms, are only in under the research competence of the DNA.
(5) Laura Codruta Kovesi benefited from a second mandate as General Prosecutor of the PICCJ, then she was promoted to the position of Chief Prosecutor of the National Anticorruption Directorate, a professional situation which, besides influences of another nature, may also be the result of the support of officials who intervened to take over the file and close the investigations in relation to the Colgate Palmolive company, under the conditions where the investigation of the deeds in the file had an advanced degree of completion and the evidence already administered could have led to notifying the court.
3) Daniel Morar served as chief prosecutor of the DNA between 2005 and 2012, a period that also includes the refusal in 2007 of the National Anticorruption Directorate to continue the investigations on the information from the “open letter” which the President of Romania sent to the DNA for investigations, and subsequently was promoted as judge at the Constitutional Court.
In this case instrumented during Daniel Morar’s Chief Prosecutor mandate, a DNA judicial police officer came to our headquarters and heard me, but he later informed me by phone that the department chief no longer wanted to continue the criminal investigation.
4) Gheorghe Popovici, Chief Prosecutor of the Division for the Fight Against Corruption within the Anticorruption Directorate, did not order the resolution of the notifications of ANAF, DGA-MAI and of the undersigned’s complaint of 01.08.2017 (see Annex 94) regarding the violation of the law and of the European Law by public servants, magistrates, officials from Farmec, and officials from the alcohol plants (see Annex 95) and submitted to us the communications (see Annex 96) of which we do not understand anything, and defrauding the budget, the company and the undersigned, the corruption deeds and law violations within the institutions continue to date.
5) Marius Bulancea, Chief Prosecutor and Head of the DNA, was a counsellor prosecutor of Laura Codruta Kovesi, during the period when she has the position of General Prosecutor of the PICCJ, and where officials from the US embassy have intervened for the litigations in which multinational companies from this state have been involved in, which carry out their economic activity also in Romania and subsequently followed the same professional route as his superior, being promoted to the position of department chief prosecutor at the National Anticorruption Directorate.
From the perspective of “professional merits of the prosecutor Marius Bulancea it is an example that his wife, Magdalena Bulancea, judge at the Court of Appeal of Bucharest received the civil case no. 27411/2/2005 for resolution (in which Colgate Palmolive was an intervener) with the non-observance of the provision stipulated in Art. 11 of Law 304/2004, which regulates the random assignment, and ex officio, raised the exception of Prestige’s lack of interest, embraced by the defence of Colgate Palmolive, but which the Competition Council and the plaintiff Prestige were against, but of course, he admitted it and rejected the action the object of which was to force the Competition Council to initiate a legal investigation in the case of the multinational company, according to previous unresolved legal decision.
6) Codruta Trandafir, prosecutor at the Human Resources Service within the DIICOT, held until 2016 the position of chief prosecutor in the Directorate for the Investigation of Organised Crime and Terrorism and the fact that her husband, Ovidiu Adrian Trandafir, is a collaborator/employee of Mr. Marcel Vulpoi, party expert of the defendants from Farmec SA, suggests that the employees of Farmec SA have benefited from a privileged status in the sense of not investigating the deeds that took place within the GROUP OF INTERESTS WITH THE RESULT OF TAX EVASION, forgery in statements, use of forgery, money laundering (…), an argument of this appreciation being that the prosecutor Codruta Trandafir was investigated by the CSM for delaying the resolution of a file that had to with ALCHOOL operations between “GHOST” companies.
7) Cornel Ioana, Inspector Prosecutor within the CSM Judicial Inspection, ordered the Resolution no. 7672/8IJ/1619/2017 (see Annex 297), which validates to be legal the attitude and activity of the DNA prosecutors not to issue a unique number and not to conduct criminal investigations, which states: “Regarding the report no. 175/VIII-1/2016 on the petitioner’s notification regarding the mechanism to defraud the State Budget and the patrimony of SC Farmec SA Cluj deriving from the acquisitions of alcohol in the regime of excise duty exemption, it is being processed by the department on fighting against crimes assimilated to the corruption crimes, after the completion of the verifications, following to be informed on the Solution adopted”
However, the filing of a complaint/denunciation as “WORK” is not provided in the Code of Criminal Procedure, the case prosecutor and the inspector prosecutor adding to the law, a context where the conclusion that the complaint is not in fact fully justified, without the file being given a “P” indicative, and in the case file to order the initiation of the criminal prosecution according to Art. 305 and the following Code of Criminal Procedure, also taking into account the specification from the resolution that in this “WORK” VERIFICATIONS are performed and not actions of criminal prosecution, as provided for in Art. 306 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, since in the case where the indicative “P” has not been assigned, no criminal investigations (VERIFICATIONS) can be carried out and the performance of criminal investigations cannot be done without starting the criminal prosecution, according to art. 305 and Art. 306 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
8) Alexandra Carmen Lancranjan, the prosecutor brought by delegation to the Prosecutor’s Office attached to the Tribunal of Bucharest and who, in violation of the provision stipulated in Art. 64 par. 4 of Law 304/2004, took the case “Farmec” and other cases from the prosecutor Ramona Ciobanu to whom the case 3164/P/2012 has been initially assigned to and who ordered legal actions for the investigation of the crime of tax evasion, under the conditions where the National Anticorruption Directorate started the criminal investigation against the prosecutor Ramona Ciobanu.
After transferring the “Farmec” case to the prosecutor A.C.Lăncrănjan who “followed” this case to two different prosecutor’s offices, she ordered the solution of classifying the file through the ordinance of 13.01.2015, under the conditions where the evidence in the file reveals a prejudice of more than 8,000,000 Euros and the new prosecutor brought by delegation and with “dedication” was informed that thousands of documents, means of evidence have disappeared from the file, as well as bout the fact that the expertise was not drawn up by the appointed expert, but by the adviser expert of the opposite party, and that the requests for evidence required by the experts and by the injured party have not been solved, ignoring even the observations of the Court of Accounts on illegally granting excise duty exemptions, in the absence of documents proving the consumption of alcohol in the manufacturing process.
The reasonable suspicion of the existence of extrajudicial interests that determined the classification solution of the prosecutor Alexandra Carmen Lancranjan is justified by the following aspects:
General Dumitru Dumbrava – Head of the Legal Department within the Romanian Intelligence Service, said on the hearing date before the Parliamentary Commission for the Control over the Activity of the SRI, that he knows Alexandra Carmen Lancranjan and collaborated with her, without specifying whether only after the promotion to the National Anticorruption Directorate or before, during the period when followed the “Farmec” case to two different prosecutors’ offices in order to close the investigation on tax evasion
Prosecutor Alexandra Carmen Lancranjan is the president of the LeaderJust Association and has received money from NGOs, but has not yet been established in institutional investigations what is the source of the money to LeaderJust and other NGOs nor whether the provisions of Art. 76 of Law no. 303/2004 on the status of judges and prosecutors are met, they are free to organise or adhere to local, national or international professional organisations for the purpose of defending their professional interests, as well as those provided by Art. 11 par. 3 of the Statutes, in accordance with which the judges and the prosecutors may be members of the scientific, academic, and any private non-patrimonial legal entities.
Given that Prosecutor Alexandra Carmen Lancranjan leads the LeaderJust organisation, it is obvious that she is responsible for the procurement and administration of its funds, and since the sources of income of this association have not been published, it is possible they may come from sponsorships from some companies that, directly or indirectly, may have legal problems even with the files instrumented by the lady prosecutor, especially since Alexandra Carmen Lancranjan has failed to highlight in the annual wealth and interest statements the income received and the value of the services she received as president of the association (airplane tickets, accommodations in hotels, which represent trip payments, etc.).
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 also known as 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 Law 303/2004. (see Annex 320 – excerpt from the newspaper Adevarul of 11.01.2018).
9) Mihaela Beldie Canela – DNA Prosecutor
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 01.08.2017 for 377 days and the request for evidence and probation items for a number of 296 days, which was issued on 20.10.2017, until 12.07.2018, 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 criminal investigation, without having carried out the hearing of the undersigned or of other individuals and without any reasoning.
- Mihaela Beldie Canela and Alexandra Carmen Lancranjansupervise the Belina and Teldrum files relating to Liviu Dragnea, president of the Social Democratic Party. In the files, there are no solutions to notify the court or not of the classification.
10) Cristian Ban was promoted as General Prosecutor of the Prosecutor’s Office attached to the Court of Appeal of Bucharest, and subsequently became a member of the Superior Council of Magistracy, considering that, prior to the promotion, he agreed to hand over the criminal case file 9016/P/2005 to the Prosecutor’s Office attached to HCCJ, which took it over by the resolution 3626/2007 of the General Prosecutor Laura Codruta Kovesi (see Annex 85), after that it was closed, a case in which the members of the Competition Council Plenum were defendants and Prestige was injured party, with a material damage of 2,100,000 lei VAT excluded, observed through the expertise, and with a fine of 1,500,000 lei, applied by the Competition Council on the basis of falsified documents, unrecoverable damages as a result of the illegal closure of the file.
11) Tatiana Toader, during the period when she served as Prime Prosecutor of the Prosecutor’s Office attached to the Court House of Sector 2, failed to solve the undersigned’s complaint of 06.10.2011 and, failing to meet the provisions of Art. 64 par. 4 of Law 304/2004, ordered the transfer of file no. 14382/P/2010 from the originally appointed prosecutor to the prosecutor Alexandra Carmen Lăncrănjan, who was afterwards promoted by delegation to the Prosecutor’s Office attached to the Tribunal for the instrumentation of the same file declined at this unit of the Prosecutor’s Office.
Tatiana Toader became a member of the CSM as of 1001.2017, and this institution formally solved the complaints registered under the no. 7671 and 7672 on 23.10.2017 (see Annex 129) and the complaint in the case of the DNA (see Annex 133).
12) Alexandru Georgescu and Deputy Prime Prosecutor Solomon Nicolae of the Prosecutor’s Office attached to the Tribunal of Bucharest ignored the contents of the documents, complaints, requests and complaints (see Annex 298 – file) as well as the communication of 17.10.2017 (see Annex 77), whereby were informed there have been and still are deeds that have not been investigated and others have been formally investigated, but also deeds in relation to which no ex officio notification has been ordered, according to Art. 292 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the measure that would have led to stop defrauding the state budget and Farmec and to the recovery of the damages.
13) Irina Lucia Sabo, Prime Prosecutor of the Prosecutor’s Office attached to the Tribunal of Cluj, after the end of the first mandate in December 2017, received a new mandate for the same position, being well-known the relations between Mircea Turdean, General Manager of Farmec SA, Marius Calin Sabo, the husband of the prosecutor Irina Lucia Sabo and the deputy Marius Petre Nicoara, head of PNL Cluj, the latter determining the promotion of the PTB Cluj Prim prosecutor’s husband.
No criminal investigations were carried out for a period of 20 months in the case 297/P/2016 of the Prosecutor’s Office attached to the Tribunal of Cluj, the file not being worked on. Lady prosecutor Irina Lucia Sabo ceased her mandate as prime prosecutor in December 2017, and received a new three-year mandate for the position of prime prosecutor.
Perhaps that is why in the criminal file with the unique no. 297/P/2016 the prosecutors of the Prosecutor’s Office attached to the Tribunal of Cluj did not carry out criminal investigations at all in relation to the facts which the initiation of the criminal prosecution “IN REM” was ordered for, within a period of 20 months, and the initiation of the criminal prosecution for the deed of money laundering, it was ordered only on 07.12.2017, although the ordinance of the Prosecutor’s Office attached to the Court House of Sector 2 in Bucharest, regarding the crimes of tax evasion, money laundering and embezzlement, was issued on 19.10.2016.
14) Rica Leordean, case prosecutor in the case no. 297/P/2016 of the Prosecutor’s Office attached to the Tribunal of Cluj Napoca, has known that in the case no actions of criminal prosecution have been performed regarding the deeds notified by the declining ordinance of the the Prosecutor’s Office attached to the Court House of Sector 2 in Bucharest and in relation to the undersigned’s requests in 2016 s and 2017 (see Annex 299).
After studying the criminal investigation file under investigation at the Financial Crime Investigation Service of Cluj, I found that from the moment when the file was declined in Cluj and assigned to the sub-inspector Varga Liviu, no relevant criminal prosecution actions were carried out. Although on 31.01.2017 I presented myself to the Prosecutor’s Office attached to the Tribunal of Cluj for hearings, Lady prosecutor Leordean refused to hear the undersigned.
In particular, an order was issued to extend the criminal prosecution of a criminal offense committed by suspects and communications to the Prosecutor’s Office attached to the Court House of Sector 2 and the DNA.
15) Isabela Nedelea, as prime prosecutor and Nicholas Argeseanu, as deputy prime prosecutor of the Prosecutor’s Office attached to the Court House of Pitesti, were formed on 20/2/2018, during my participation in the audience at the Prosecutor’s Office, in which I informed that the criminal investigation bodies of the police did not comply with the provisions of Art. 303 par. 1 Code of Criminal Procedure, in the sense that they did not comply with the mandatory provisions of the case prosecutor that were given by the ordinance issued on 08.11.2017 (see Annex 126), orders according to the provisions of Art. 66 index 1 (6) of Law 304/2004, following the request for evidence of 06.11.2017 (see Annex 125) and the explanations in the request concerning the administration of the evidence with documents as admitted by the ordinance from 08.11.2017.
By the ordinance of 08.11.2017, the prosecutor accepted the administration of the evidence with documents requested by the undersigned, consisting in the withdrawal of documents in the possession of FARMEC SA and having a clear relevance on the content of the incriminated expertise, evidence in relation to which the case prosecutor observed it to “Thorough and useful to the case“, ordering the administration thereof by the competent body, ie the police officer who instruments the case file.
In exercising in good faith the procedural rights, on 23.01.208, I have sent to the police authorities clarifications regarding the documents required to be requested or diligently picked up from the FARMEC SA, according to the provisions of Art. 5 Par. (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which establishes the obligation of the judicial bodies to ensure, based on the evidence, finding the truth regarding the deeds and circumstances of the case.
However, for more than six months, the police bodies having the competence of criminal prosecution did not implement the mandatory provisions of the prosecutor and did not even request FARMEC to deliver the documents admitted as evidence by the prosecutor’s order of 08.112017.
Given the delay by the police bodies of the administration of evidence admitted by the case prosecutor, I have brought this situation to attention in the audience I was given by the Deputy Prime Prosecutor of the Prosecutor’s Office attached to the Court House of Pitesti, who recommended that I would exercise my procedural right to draft a complaint about the police bodies’ failure to fulfil the measures and criminal prosecution actions ordered by the case prosecutor, which are mandatory and a priority for the investigation bodies as by this action, a legitimate damage was caused to my legal interests.
The expertise signed by Mirela Pintea, Vulpoi Marcel and Ioan Culda is both a false testimony, a deed in relation to which I was caused the damage of interests and a forgery in statements, the deed stipulated in Art. 326 criminal code and use of forgery, a deed that caused me a patrimonial damage and the damage of my interests because the experts drafted an official document that did not reflect the reality in relation to the accounting documents required by the undersigned through the request for evidence (see Annex 125) in relation to which lady prosecutor Doina Lacramioara Popa considered that the documentary evidence was thorough and useful for the case and ordered that the evidence is brought to the file.
16) Lăcramioara Doina Popa, case prosecutor in the case 3680/P/2017 at the Prosecutor’s Office attached to the Court House of Pitesti ordered, by the ordinance of 08.11.2017 (see Annex 126) to be brought in the evidence which have been requested by the request for evidence of 06.11.2017 (see Annex 125), a request which the prosecutor considered to be thorough and useful to the case. In relation to the circumstance that the police officer did not file the evidence that was approved by the prosecutor, six months before, in the case the provisions stipulated in Art. 303 par. 2 Code of Criminal Procedure have been violated: “The provisions made by the prosecutor in relation to the performance of the criminal prosecution actions are compulsory and a priority for the criminal investigation body…” and the provisions stipulated in Art. 5 Code of Criminal Procedure on finding out the truth: “The judicial bodies have the obligation to provide finding of the truth based on evidence”.
17) Adrian Petrescu, Prosecutor at the Prosecutor’s Office attached to the Court House of Sector 2 in Bucharest, by the ordinance of 19.10.2016 (see Annex 300), in the criminal case no. 14382/P/2010, ordered the classification of the case for the deed of abuse of office in the continued form in relation to the distribution of divindends and the repeated violation of the law and of some court decisions, a circumstance in relation to which my property right is breached because I am unable to recover from the managers of Farmec SA the amount of 2,200,000 lei, which was knowingly and illegally distributed by them to the individuals from their families after the Decision of the Court of Appeal of Bucharest 522/2007 remained irrevocable through the decision of the ICCJ 2390/2008.
It is first noteworthy that all the evidence related to this deed has been administered and the criminal prosecution was completed long before the Constitutional Court adopted the decision specified in reasoning the ordinance to classify the abuse of service retained against the joint stock company’s administrators, which makes me consider that extrajudicial interests and influences have existed, which have determined the delay of solving the cause so that it would not order the guilty individuals to be sued.
This appreciation is supported by the hypothesis of the existence of a consent between the police officers from DICE and the prosecutor Adrian Petrescu in order not to end up suing and criminal prosecution of the managers of FARMEC SA, which exceeds the provisions of Art. 321, Art. 322 and following in the Criminal Procedure Code, taking into account that, in the communication of……. of submitting the file to the prosecutor’s office (See Annex 301), the police officer Alexandru Popescu makes the following specification: “…we are submitting the criminal file 14382/P/2010 to you as attachment, along with the report with the proposal of classification, a solution discussed in advance with the case prosecutor”.
Further, officials from Farmec officials enjoy the fact that the prosecutor Adrian Petrescu was further assigned with the Farmec criminal file remained at the Prosecutor’s Office attached to the Court House of Sector 2 court, which benefited from the failure to process the file on 17.10.2016 when the ordinance and the Note of guidance were issued by the same prosecutor for the prescription and solution of classification predicted in the Farmec case in the absence of investigations and hearings.
Keeping the criminal files unprocessed is a practice at the Prosecutor’s Office attached to the Court House of Sector 2 in Bucharest, in the context where the same prosecutor Adrian Petrescu submitted me the ordinance of May 2018, signed by Adrian Petrescu (see the annex), which establishes the prescription intervention in the case 1481/P/2011 and the initiation of the criminal trial, a situation, a situation that favours the individuals guilty of criminal deeds. There also follow other files that confirm the practice of the prosecutors from the Prosecutor’s Office attached to the Court House of Sector 2 led by the prime prosecutor Tatiana Toader who was promoted to the Superior Council of Magistracy.
18) Tanase Joita – General Prosecutor of Romania. During the same period when the Prosecutor Tanase Joita served her mandate as Prosecutor General of the Prosecutor’s Office attached to the ICCJ, the lawyer Ovidiu Joita, son of the Prosecutor General of Romania, concluded a consultancy contract with Liviu Turdean (see Annex 302).
The General Prosecutor’s Office headed by Tanase Joita ensured the supervision in the criminal care 305/P/2000 that was under the investigation of the Criminal Investigation Directorate within the General Police Inspectorate
I consider that it cannot be dissociated the causal connection between:
- three solutions for the removal from the criminal prosecution in the file 305/P/2000 of the Prosecutor’s Office attached to the High Court of Cassation and Justice
- two proposals to arrest the Chief Executive Officer of Farmec, which were drafted by the officials of the Criminal Investigation Directorate (see Annex 303), which were rejected by prosecutors from the General Prosecutor’s Office and
- the “consultancy” contract between the lawyer Ovidiu Joita, the son of the General Prosecutor Tanase Joita and Liviu Turdean
- reopening the criminal file 305/P/2000 by the ordinance of the Deputy Prime Prosecutor of the Prosecutor’s Office attached to the High Court of Cassation and Justice, Marcel Sanpetru(see Annex 304), immediately after Tanase Joita was replaced and no longer exercised her influence. After the end of the mandate, the prosecutor Tanase Joita was sent by the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Mircea Geoana to the position of general consul of Romania in Strasbourg, where she worked until 2005.
- regarding the file 305/P/2000, the European Court of Human Rights, by the DECISION adopted at the session of 27.05.2014, took note of the Government’s Declaration on acknowledging the existence of a violation of Art. 6 par. 1 of the CONVENTION, which results from the excessive duration of the internal proceedings in relation with the criminal case in which the plaintiff participated as civil party and which Nicolae Cristinel Olaneanu referred to in the request 28962/2004 against Romania, respectively the aforementioned criminal case.
(19) Georgiana Hosu – Deputy Prosecutor at the Directorate for the Investigation of Organised Crime and Terrorism (DIICOT) was proposed by Tudorel Toader, Minister of Justice from the PSD-ALDE to definitively take care of the position of Deputy Prosecutor at DIICOT, following that the CSM and President Johannis to give the approval. When exercising the mandate of Prosecutor General of Romania by Joita Tanase, he entrusted the criminal file 305/P/2000 to the prosecutor Georgiana Hosu, who ordered the solution of classification (removal from the criminal prosecution) for several deeds (see Annex 342 – the ordinance of the prosecutor Georgiana Hosu).
It is known that at that time Joita Ovidiu, lawyer and the son of Joita Tanase, had commercial consultancy relations with Turdean Liviu, who was indicted in the criminal case 305/P/2000, judicial actions concluded at the General Prosecutor’s Office, could be influenced by this connection of causality. The classification ordinance of the prosecutor Georgiana Hosu was denied by three courts: court house, tribunal and the Court of Appeal of Bucharest in the case 30272/3/2007.
4. POLICE OFFICERS
(1) Alexandru Popescu and Catalin Ciongaru, police officers from the IGPR-DICE, not only ensured the framework for the disappearance from the file of thousands of documents, of probative value (see Annex 105 – request for restoring the file with the evidence that has disappeared), but they did not order any measures either to restore the criminal prosecution file with the missing evidence nor did they solve the requests for evidence of the injured party (see Annex 298 – the centraliser with the requests for evidence), but knowingly “omitted” the performance of investigations and the proposal by the prosecutor on extending the criminal investigations on the following matters arising during the criminal prosecution:
- The Court of Accounts found the violation of the law by the customs officials who returned the excise duties to Farmec SA in the absence of any verifications;
- Farmec SA does not present to the Department for Monitoring the Excise Duties and Customs Operations the documents stipulated in item 22 par. 34 of the Methodological Norms for the Application of the Fiscal Code
- Farmec SA issues invoices with alcohol-containing products, then either returns and cancels them without the products being reinserted into the stock of Farmec, or the invoices issued are not encashed and are closed by non-deductible expenses, in reality the products not being delivered to customers, as the invoices are not registered with NIRs to them.
The two police officers did not provide for the expertise the accounting output documents that have been requested by the experts through the requests of 21.03, 10.04, 27.05, 08.07, 01.08 and 05.08.2013 (see Annex 109) and did not carry out investigations in relation to the circumstance that the expertise has been done by the opposite party, by the author Anca Budeanu, employee of the defendants’ party expert, Vulpoi Marcel (see Annex 119 – excerpt from the electronic root of the expertise).
The police officer Catalin Ciongaru spoke to the appointed expert Mandru Gheorghe to hand over the expertise without the documents that were requested by the experts through the above-mentioned requests and the policeman Alexandru Popescu intervened in Tiberiu Trandafir, CECCAR auditor, to give the quality audit in the absence of opinion of the undersigned expert, Violeta Radu.
The agreement between the police officer Alexandru Popescu and the prosecutor (see annex 301) regarding the solution classification exceeds the provisions stipulated in Art. 297 Code of Criminal Procedure and is based on extrajudicial reasons.
(2) Aurel Dobre, Manager of the Investigation Economic Crime Investigation Directorate of the Romanian Police, although at the audience in 2016 and in the subsequent requested I have informed them that thousands of pieces of evidence have disappeared from the “Farmec” case, a totally ignored situation by the police officers in its subordination, did not order measures to restore the file with the missing evidence and to carry out a criminal prosecution in compliance with the law (see Annexes 272, 273, 274 – requests to the Manager of DICE – unsolved).
(3) Liviu Varga, a police officer of SICE in Cluj, transferred from the Satu-Mare police, is the third police officer to whom the Farmec file has been assigned to, registered under the no. 297/P/2017 of the Prosecutor’s Office attached to the Tribunal of Cluj, where no criminal investigations have been carried out for a period of more than 20 months and it is anticipated the adoption of a solution of classification on the criminal deeds of tax evasion, money laundering and embezzlement in relation to which the criminal prosecution was initiated IN REM, but no evidence was filed in the case and no criminal investigation activities were carried out to establish the deeds and the guiltiness.
(4) Cătălin Voicu, police officer within Department 1 of the Police of Pitesti, whom the file 3680/P/2017 was assigned to for instrumentation, concerning the deeds of false testimony of experts Mirela Pintea, Marcle Vulpoi and Ioan Culda, failed to fulfil his obligations as a criminal investigation body and did not administer the evidence in relation to which the case prosecutor ordered, by the ordinance of 08.11.2017 (see Annex 126), that they are conclusive, useful and absolutely necessary for the resolution of the case, violating the provisions of Art. 303 par. (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, according to which the prosecutor’s orders regarding the performance of any criminal prosecution action by the criminal investigation bodies of the judicial police are compulsory for them.
(1) Judge Lucian Netejoru, is superintendent of the Judicial Inspection of the CSM, which means he analyses, approves and signs the communications of the resolutions decided by the inspectors during this inspection, which means that he assumes the content of these resolutions and endorses a formal investigation of the disciplinary deviations notified, as is the case of the resolution to classify my petitions no. 7671/24.10.17 and no. 7672/24.10.2017 (see Annexes 129 and 133) regarding the violation by the DNA prosecutors of the provisions of Art. 110 from the Operating Rules of this structure of the Prosecutor’s Office and Art. 129 of the Internal Regulations of this structure within the Prosecutor’s Offices, which stipulate that the notification documents must receive a registration number accompanied by the indicative “P” (criminal, Romanian: Penal), under the conditions where the DNA has not assigned an indicative “P” nor did it carry out investigations on the criminal deeds notified by the undersigned, DGA-ANAF and DGA-MAI.
From this perspective, it is noted that the motivation in the resolution of classification, issued by the Judicial Inspection of the CSM under the signature of Inspector Ioana Cornel and Chief Inspector Lucian Netejoru, in the sense that the DNA notifications on committing several crimes have not been registered as a criminal file with the “P” indicative, but were recorded as “REPORT” in which “VERIFICATIONS” are performed and not criminal prosecution actions, has no correspondence with the rules of criminal procedure, and therefore it is not real and possible for the DNA to carry out verifications outside the limits stipulated by the law.
The second complaint addressed to the Judicial Inspection on 24.10.2017 was also formally resolved, complaint which I attached the document in Annex 133 to, and I was submitted on 15.11.2017 the resolution of classification under the signature of Inspector Alin Bogdan Alexandru, on the grounds that the petition was not signed, which proves that the CSM inspector did not even read my notification because the undersigned’s complaint was signed, but moreover it could not be classified for this reason because, according to Art. 74 letter e) of Law no. 317/2004, the Judicial Inspection had the obligation to notify ex officio, taking into account the very many violations of the law by the judges and prosecutors specified in the document attached to the petition.
It is well-known that magistrate Lucian Netejoru is a member of a MASONIC organisation (according to press excerpts, see Annex 305), membership likely to justify the legitimate question whether the chief inspector of the CSM Judicial Inspection was influenced or not by the MASONIC colleagues, obviously in an extra professional environment, to acquire the resolutions of classifying my complaints, in relation to the formal and superficial way of solving them, but also in relation to possible relationships of the officials of Farmec or of the officials of the public institutions, who were the object of the petitions, with this organisation.
(2) Judge Flavius Moţu, President of the Specialised Tribunal of Cluj, during the period between January 2012 to 2018, and the president of the panel of judges in the cases 1129/1285/2016 (covering the assumption of the liability of Farmec’s managers), case 829/1285/2016, case 2116/1285/2011 1203/1285/2008) -is the wedding GODFATHER of Ani Cristian, a manager of Farmec SA (in Christian terms, he is his spiritual father), a connection likely to vitiate the impartiality of the magistrate in solving the legal conflicts which Farmec is part of, which would have imposed the assumption of the obligation to refrain from judging such cases, in relation to the provisions of Art. 42 par. 1, 9 and 13, corroborated with those of Art. 43 of the Code of Civil Procedure, taking into account the incompatibility reason that “there are other elements that genuinely result in doubts about his impartiality”.
The GODFATHER – GODSON relationship between Flavius Moţu and Ani Cristian, together with other extrajudicial interests, caused the violation of the magistrate status and of the legal norms by the President of the Specialised Tribunal of Cluj, who used this status to disregard the procedure for of assigning the files, on the same day as the date of filing the case to the court, regulated by Art. 93 of the GD 387¹, in order for the files to be assigned to certain judges willing to breach the legal provisions governing the way of a fair trial is conducted and to give decisions favourable for the opposite party, as it results from the following examples:
1) The President of the Specialised Tribunal of Cluj at that time, Flavius Iancu Motu, assigned his civil case 1129/1285/2016 in violation of the provisions of Art. 11 and 139 of Law 304/2014, under the conditions where it the court was informed on 14.12.2016, at 12.33, by e-mail (see Annex 192 – mail communication), but it was assigned on the next day, on 15.12.2016 at 9.21 (see Annex 193 – court communication).
The one-day waiting period resulted in the passage of the time needed for other files to be inserted into the ECRIS system during this time, and my perception is that the Farmec case “waited” for Mr. Flavius Motu’s turn to come, in order to be inserted into the ECRIS system. As such an interest could not be of the undersigned, I believe that I do not mistakenly to believe that this manner of assignment was being pursued by the opposite party, and that it is convinced that by the fact that the file reaches the panel of judges of Mr. Flavius Motu, my requests and action are going to be rejected.
The subject of the file was the responsibility of the managers and directors of Farmec SA, as well as forcing them to pay significant amount of money into the company’s account, and on the hearing date of 29.05.2017, the magistrate officially proposed the suspension of the trial until the resolution of the case 802/1285/2016, without the latter having a connection with the engagement of the liability.
Following the letter of the undersigned on 29.09.2017 (see Annex 306), magistrate Motu Flavius changed his mind, put the case back to court, but the trial was delayed for about six months, and on the deadline of 22.01.2018, the same magistrate appointed Horea Turdean as curator, the brother of the general manager Mircea Turdean, whose responsibility we have requested to be involved through court promoted action, ignoring “with care” the fact that, according to the law, the personal interest is manifested to relatives of the fourth degree and prohibits a brother, or brother-in-law, to be appointed as a curator in the place of the administrators at Farmec SA, which is a decision that protects the interests of individuals in the Turdean and Pantea families and was made from the perspective as godfather of one of the managers of Farmec SA.
In the same case 1129/1285/2016, we filed a petition for the recusal of Judge Motu Flavius, after which not only he did not formulate the request to abstain, but, as president of the court, he determined that the magistrate Claudiu Gligan should reject the request for recusal, with an obvious formal motivation, under the conditions where President Motu Flavius did not want to admit the request for recusal, taking into account that he had previously refused to abstain, which allowed maintaining and even perpetuating the obvious incompatibility of the President of the Tribunal.
The admission of the request for suspending the trial in the public hearing of 22/05/2018 was indicated by the defendants’ lawyer Claudiu Brehar on the hearing date of 14.05.2018. The admission of the request for suspension is not well founded (see Annex 195 – Written Notes filed in the case in relation to the information that has been requested by the judge), but it is a decision that favours the defendants’ interest, so that in the context of the request for evidence with documents, to not bring to the case the requests for the return of excise duties since the period of 2007-2018 and the related documents regarding the actual consumption of alcohol in the manufacturing process at Farmec SA. Control reports and the decisions for the return of excise duties, along with the documents highlighting transfers of large amounts of money to the account of some services not proven to be real.
2) The president of the court, Flavius Motu assigned the civil case 1021/1285/2016 to magistrate Rares Razvan Costea, in violation of the provisions of Art. 11 and 139 of Law 303/2004, each of the provisions contributing to the performance of a fair trial.
Thus, the case 1021/1285/2016 was filed at court on 11.11.2016 at 1.42 PM (see Annex 197 – excerpt from e-mail transmission) and was inserted into the Ecris system the next day on 14.11.2016 at 09.08 AM (see Annex 197), in violation of the procedure provided for in Art. 11 and 139 of Law 304/2004 governing the random assignment of the file in the order of filing it to the Tribunal”
The one-day waiting period resulted in the passage of the time required for other files to be inserted into the ECRIS system, files that entered the court after the date and time when the action was filed, which I have inserted on 11.11.2016 at 1.42 PM.
Under these circumstances, we cannot speak of a random assignment but only of a controlled and guided input into the ECRIS system of file 1021/1285/2016.
The object of the file is the share capital increase by 1,000,000 shares, at a price of 2.5 lei/share, with the limitation of the undersigned to participate in the subscription of the new shares, a limitation that was made through the project of issuance of these shares, violating the provisions of Art. 217 of Law 31 and Art. 29 of the Second Council Directive and creating a difference of more than 30,000,000 Euros.
3) The President of the Court, Flavius Motu, in violation of the provisions of Art. 139 Law 304/2004, which results in the obligation to “ensure the observance of the principles of random assignment and continuity” throughout the civil trial, transferred the case no. 1121/1285/2016 from the magistrate Voichita Oros – who received from Farmec SA the amount of 10,000 Lei, according to a wealth statement – to the magistrate Ivanescu Simona, against whom I have filed a complaint addressed to the National Agency for Integrity (see Annex 264), which has not yet been solved, but which generates a litigious state between this magistrate and the undersigned, which is likely to break the impartiality of the judge I have complained to ANI.
4) The President of the Court, Flavius Motu, assigned the files 1110/1285/2016 and 442/1285/2017 to the magistrate Ancuta Pavelescu with the violation of the procedure of assigning the file on the same day with the date of entering the file at the court.
5) The President of the Court, Moţu Flavius, in the case 3414/1285/2011, rejected the request for refrain formulated by the judge Oros Grunea Voichita Laura, who in 2007 received the amount of 10,000 lei from Farmec SA, unique prize, according to the magistrate’s wealth statement, while Judge Hamciuc Daniela, in the case 2327/1285/2010, admitted the request for refrain formulated by the same magistrate Oros Grunea Voichita Laura and for the same reasons, making it impossible for me to understand the considerations why two judges in the same court rule diametrically opposed solutions regarding an identical factual and legal situation.
6) In the case no. 1110/1285/2016, there is obviously the case of incompatibility stipulated by Art. 42 ind. 2 Par. 1 item 13 Code of the Civil Procedure being grounded elements that create doubts on the impartiality taking into account the relationship with Mr. Ani Cristian , but in this case judge Motu Flavius has not abstained either.
7) In the case no. 829/1285/2016, I have submitted to the Specialised Tribunal of Cluj a request in which I mentioned the notoriety of the GODFATHER – GODSON relationship between judge Motu Flavius and the Manager of Farmec, Ani Cristian, – and not even following this request did Mr. Motu Flavius refrain in solving that case.
(3) Judge Răzvan Rares Costea, was appointed president of the Specialised Tribunal of Cluj since January 2018 (???), and, contrary to the provisions of Art. 57 par. 6 of Law 303/2004, which allow only for an extension of the mandate by six months, the magistrate has received three delegation mandates obtained in violation of the law.
On the date of delegating judge Razvan Rares Costea, there were 9 (nine) requests of other magistrates for the transfer to the Specialised Tribunal of Cluj, among whom Judge Ana Aldea, who had been serving for 19 years in magistracy compared to magistrate Razvan Rares Costea who had been serving only for 6 years.
This privileged situation magistrate Răzvan Rareş Costea benefited from may also explain the decision of the President Flavius Moţu to assign the case no. 1021/1285/2016 in violation of the rules on random assignment, resulting in the rejection of all useful and conclusive exceptions and evidence in solving the case, with the consequence of ruling a quick solution to the illegal increase of the share capital by 1,000,000 shares, adopted by the AGEA of Farmec on 19.10.2016, whereby my participation in the subscription of new shares was not allowed, violating the legal norms and the Second Council Directive, according to which ” The right of pre-emption cannot be limited or withdrawn by the Statutes or instrument of incorporation……”
In the sentence no. 1191/27.06.2018, which rejects the plaintiff’s action for cancellation, the judge has deliberately omitted that the increase by one million shares proposed and ordered by Turdean and Pantea for their benefit was made according to the issuance prospectus – with the limitation of the undersigned’s right to subscribe new shares, in violation of the provisions of Art. 216 and 217 of Law 31/1990 – at a price of 2.5 lei, a price per share underestimated by more than 30 times compared to the accounting or real value of a share at Farmec. The judge was brought by delegation for the solution in this file and the file 1021/1285/2016 was assigned the day after the date of filing to the Tribunal, in violation of Art. 11 and 139 on the random assignment. Read also the Specialised Tribunal of Cluj regarding RR Costea – Chapter V, item 10.5)
Rejecting and ignoring the evidence that have been requested in the case by Judge R.R. Costea
- The judge rejected the requests for evidence with documents and the evidence with expertise
- The judge in question considered it necessary to verify the reality of the quorum presented by Farmec in the table of attendance and approved THE EVIDENCE IN THE CASE to bring to the file the register of shareholders, meaning that by the communication that was issued on 20.09.2017 (see the annex), by which the Tribunal requested from the Registrul Miorita SA an excerpt from the defendant’s register of shareholders, which would include the information provided in Art. 177 par. 1 letter a) of Law 31/1990.
Registrul Miorita did not present the register of shareholders requested by the court, which would contain, according Art. 177 of Law 31, the shareholders and shareholders’ payments for the accounts of shares (see Annex 345 – the response communication from Registrul Miorita). Registrul Miorita SA belongs to the said Mirel Borodi. Farmec transferred 45,000,000 to the company owned by his brother Marcel Borodi (read also about Borodin, chapter VI, item 13 (2)
Judge Costea tacitly gave up this evidence, which would have had the role of highlighting the reality of the quorum presented by Farmec in the minutes of the AGA meeting on 19.10.2016 and the illegitimacy of the individuals mentioned by Farmec in the table of attendance on the occasion of the Decision of 19.10.2016 in terms of the fact that there is no evidence that the individuals specified in the register of shares have made the payments for the account of the shares.
By the sentence 1191 of 27.062018, drafted in September 2018, Judge R.R. Costea rejected the action for cancellation, ignoring the written NOTES of the plaintiff’s lawyer (see the annex) and the DUPLICATE (see the annex) to the written conclusions formulated by the plaintiff (see the annex)
In conclusion, this is not a trial, but an “EXECUTION“, because we cannot dissociate the causality connection between the rejection of the action by Judge Costea and the following considerations that prefigured the decision of rejection given by the sentence 1191/27.06.2018, which was taken in another context two years prior to this.
Surprisingly, Judge R.R. Costea notes on page 23 of the sentence that “the procedure for subscribing the new shares does not include measures to withdraw or limit the plaintiff’s right of preference“
I specify that on 19.10.2016, I had 272,318 register of sharesed in the register of shareholders and the threshold for limitation in the statuses of Farmec was 190,000 shares.
Or, according to the issuance prospectus, the undersigned, I was allowed to subscribe from the new increase, up to a maximum of 190,000 shares, according to the excerpt from the issuance prospectus:
“the number of new shares that may be subscribed in exercising the right of preference shall be calculated in compliance with what has been specified above and the provisions of Art. 8 par. 6 of the company’s instrument of incorporation, by which it is established that a shareholder cannot own more than 190,000 shares of the company”
Par. 2 on page 2 and par. 1 on page 3 of the procedure of subscribing (Annex 200) the shares explicitly regulates that the shares subscribed over the limit of 190,000 shares are not allocated. Another express limitation of the shareholders’ right of preference is Art. 216, 217 of Law 31/1990 harmonised with the provisions of Art. 29 (4) of the Second Council Directive governing that the right of pre-emption cannot be restricted or withdrawn by statutes or instrument of incorporation.
As a result of the non-observance of the law, the company has suffered a prejudice of more than 16,000,000 Euros, the undersigned a prejudice of more than 5,500,000 Euros, and the shares issued in violation of the law were done for the benefit of Turdean and Pantea.
No matter how much perseverance judge R.R. Costea would have manifested, in order to create the appearance of legality on reasoning the sentence 1191/27.06.2018 to reject the action of the undersigned, there are two legal aspects that cannot be overcome
- the increase by 1,000,000 shares occurred by limiting the undersigned’s right to subscribe for new shares at a limitation threshold of 190,000 shares illegally specified in the statues of Farmec, while the undersigned legally held 272,000 shares, and in this case, the judge did not sanction the failure of Farmec SA to comply with the provisions of Art. 216 and 217 of Law 31/1990
- the limitation in the statuses may only be valid for the transactions between shareholders in terms of the shares held by each individual but it is forbidden to limit in the statuses a shareholder’s right to subscribe new shares from the new issuance.
approved three mandates for the delegation of Judge R.R. Costea from another Tribunal in violation of the provision stipulated in Art. 57 Par. 6 of Law 303/2004 which regulates the right to only two delegations
Judge R.R. Costea was preferred by Mrs. Denisa Baldean although at that time she had requests from magistrates with seniority and more experience in magistracy
The result was the assignment of file 1021/1285/2016 to the judge RR Costea, in violation of Art. 11 and 139 of Law 304/2004 on the random assignment, the rejection of the requests for evidence, the ignorance of court decisions with the force of res judicata favourable to the plaintiff and the rejection of the action in violation of Art. 216 and 217 of Law 31. Read also about the Tribunal of Cluj, file 1021 RR Costea – Chapter V, item 10.5 (2).
(5) Judge Simona Ivanescu, appointed in the case 1021/1285/2016 at the Specialised Tribunal of of Cluj, should have refrained from solving this case, taking into account the provisions stipulated by Art. 43, Par. (2) and Art. 42 par. (9) and the existence of a state of enmity between me and this magistrate, arising from the notification against him and registered under the no. 136/11.02.2012 to the National Agency for Integrity, even under the conditions where my petition was formally resolved and the issues notified were not verified by the ANI, the circumstance in relation to which I recorded with the same institution, under the no. 22959/08.08.2012, a supplement to the initial notification, without any result till now, which means a certain protection enjoyed by the magistrate, and this situation and the aforementioned law violations cannot be dissociated from the fact that the judge Simona Ivănescu received the case no. 1121/1285/2016 from the direct panel of judges 10 to the direct panel of judges 3, set out a new trial deadline only 2 days later, namely on 20.06.2017, with the intention, declared in the court room, to “urgently” solve the case on that deadline, which also prefigured ruling a decision favourable to the opposite party.
In relation tot his situation, on the hearing date of 20.06.2017, I filed a petition for recusal against magistrate Ivănescu Simona, which was solved on the same day by magistrate Pacurar Iulian, permanent judge in the direct Panel of judges C1, illegally appointed to judge the request for recusal that needed to be solved by the direct panel of judges C4, because the recused judge is part of the direct panel of judges C3 and, according to Art. 110 of the CSM Decision no.1375*/2015 “- (1) The procedural incidents regarding the incompatibility, recusal or abstention of all the members of the panel of judges shall be settled by the panel of judges with the immediate next number, who shall judge on the same matter…
The transfer of the file from one judge to another was done by the president of the Tribunal and the management board which both Mr. Motu Flavius and Mrs. Ivanescu Simona, respectively the judge whom the file was transferred to and, although I requested to be given the evidence of the random assignment of the file from the panel of judges C10 to the panel of judges C3, in compliance with the provisions of Art. 139 of Law no. 304/2004, the president of the Tribunal informed me that C10 has been dissolved and that based on the decision of the management board, the file has been assigned in a cyclic manner, specifying that I cannot be submitted the decision of the management board because I would not have the quality of interested individual, although I obviously have the quality of interested individual in order to be informed if the magistrates participating in judging the actions introduced by me are appointed in compliance with the law and the file is assigned to them in compliance with the legal provisions.
Assessing that, should the law be not complied with in any of these two cases, the magistrates become incompatible with the resolution of the actions introduced by me and my right to information is fully legitimate to me, and my right to information is fully legitimate, I have returned with a request to the Tribunal by which I proved that I am an interested person and I requested to be submitted the decision of the management board, but I have received no answer so far.
(6) The judge ANCUŢA PAVELESCU, from the Court House of Cluj, was brought by delegation to the Specialised Tribunal of Cluj and was assigned the case 442/1285/2017, in violation with the procedure provision stipulated in Art. 11, and 139 of Law 304/2004 on the random assignment of files on the same day as the date of filing it to court, and the magistrate so appointed rejected the action of the undersigned for cancelling the decision of AGA Farmec of 11.05.2017 regarding the amendment in the company’s Statutes on the limitation threshold, failing to meet Art. 14 Par. 5 and Art. 15 Code of Civil Procedure, in the sense that it did not allow my chosen lawyer to express verbal conclusions during the public hearing of the deadline of 21.12.2016 (???), violating the principle of orality and of contradiction stipulated by the civil procedure
1) The magistrate Ancuta Pavelescu rejected the action of the undersigned, through the sentence no. 1954/06.12.2017, VALIDATING AS LEGAL the limitation through the STATUTES, even if the Second Council Directive prohibits the limitation by statutes (see Annex 203 – Action under cancellation and written notes) and, immediately after ruling this decision, received the final appointment on position from the Superior Council of Magistracy (see Annex 307). After 202 days since the date of ruling the decision, the magistrate did not draft the sentence in the file although the provision stipulated in Art. 346 par. 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure regulates the 30 day drafting.
2) The husband of magistrate Ancuta Pavelescu is a prosecutor in the National Anticorruption Department – the Division of Cluj, and at the central structure of the DNA the complaint, the denunciation and the notifications of the undersigned, of ANAF Antifraud Directorate and of MAI-DGA did not receive a unique number with the indicative “P ” for three years.
(7) The judges Puscasu Danusia and Roxana Mihaela Veres, in the file 1110/1285/2016 of the Court of Appeal of Cluj, by the decision no. 78/01.02.2017, rejected the appeal of the undersigned, under the conditions where the case was assigned to them after 20 days, on 16.01.2016, at 11:23, a circumstance in relation to which there is the reasonable suspicion that it was pursed to assign the file to the panel of judges consisting of these magistrates, as Roxana Mihaela Veres is a judge who also participated in the rejection of the action in the case 829/1285/2016, and the magistrate’s husband Adrian Puscasu is an officer in the Security and Protection Service.
In those circumstances, the appeal panel of judges ruled an obviously unlawful and ungrounded decision, since:
- it failed to take into account the complete fulfilment of the three requirements necessary to issue a presidential ordinance and omitted in bad faith to establish that the AGA decision the effects of which I requested to be suspended should be analysed also in terms of the right of the undersigned to protect my participation to the share capital of the company by avoiding the reduction of the percentage of shares held as a result of increasing the share capital, without my possibility to subscribe new shares.
- refused to withhold the urgency of the interim action requested, determined by the fact that, until the substantive settlement of the action for the cancellation of the AGA decision to illegally increase the share capital of Farmec SA, with the limitation of my right to subscribe for new shares, the illegally issued shares, at an undervalued price, shall be used to vote for operations in relation to which the previous situation cannot be re-established.
(8) The judge Voichita Laura Oros – Grunea, from the Commercial Tribunal of Cluj received from Farmec the amount of 10,000 lei, according to her wealth statement (see Annex 138) but participated in the trial of the civil cases 7801/1285/2010, 3414/1285/2011 and 1121/1285/2016, in which the company that offered her the money was party, because its requests for refrain were rejected by MOTU FLAVIUS, President of the Tribunal of Cluj (see Annex 234), but also a former high school colleague and the wedding godfather of CRISTIAN ANI, one of the managers of Farmec SA.
In this context, the magistrate who was kept in the file, Voichiţa Oros (Grunea), showed an obviously subjective attitude, biased in the execution of the judicial procedure, rejecting the requests for evidence and proceeding even to amending the undersigned, as plaintiff, for the formulation of all the requests, all the “efforts” of the aforementioned having the purpose and effect to prevent filing of the documents that are likely to prove defrauding the state budget, the company’s patrimony and the rights of the shareholders.
(9) The magistrates Adina Fundatureanu, Denisa Vâlvoi and Dumitru Vaduva, who formed the panel of judges invested with the resolution of the appeal in the civil case no. 3414/285/2011, participated in my “EXECUTION” at the Court of Appeal of Pitesti from a procedural and patrimonial point of view because they ruled a decision that was prefigured before the session, namely a certain solution prepared and discussed in a context other than the civil trial, which resulted in the rejection of the undersigned’s appeal, the admission of Farmec’s appeal, the admission of the appeal formulated by the expert Pintea Mirela and forcing me to pay an expert fee of approx. 60,000 lei, additionally to the amount of 15,032 lei, a total of 75,000 lei as expert fee (?? !!) which I paid as a result of the order of the Tribunal of Arges in exchange for an expertise that does not reflect the reality!!!
Thus, on the hearing term of 10.10.2017, even since the opening of the hearing, the president of the panel of judges stated that “today the court postpones ruling the case” without any of the parties’ lawyers to have spoken a word (see Annex 240 – the note for the transcription of the hearing session). In relation to the circumstances that by the request for appeal (in the case 3414/1285/20111 – see Annex 239) I requested the administration of evidence with new documents, and the president of the panel of judges said since the beginning that the court postpones ruling the case, it means that, without hearing the argument in contradiction based on the utility and conclusive evidence, the court prefigured the rejection of any evidence with documents, which is equivalent to the fact that the judges have already given their opinion on the case.
If the evidence with documents proposed by the undersigned would have been administered, I would have proven that the assignment of the case was not done on the same day as the date of filing the case in the archive, because the president of the Specialised Tribunal of Argeș, knowing the cycling and order of the assignment of files by panels of judges within the ECRIS system, has waited until the assignment of other files, the turn of the panel of judges coming afterwards in the ECRIS system, a panel he was part of himself, and to redistribute the file, and under these conditions, we cannot deem the assignment to be random, but directed.
Or, the incompliance with the principle of random assignment (as established by Art. 11 and Art. 139 of Law 304/2004), as a result of the fact that the files has not been assigned on the same day as the date of filing the case to court is a reason of absolute nullity of the appealed decision and of the entire trial of the court of first instance with the consequence of dissolution of the sentence and remanding the case for retrial. Rejecting the evidence for proving this reason of absolute nullity is a judges’ prejudgement regarding this reason of absolute nullity invoked in the request for appeal.
Rejecting the request to suspend the trial until the resolution of the criminal trial under the Art. 244 Old Code of Civil Procedure, having as object the criminal prosecution for committing the deed of false testimony by the expert Pintea Mirela who drafted and submitted the expertise to the Specialised Tribunal of Arges, is a new reason for pre-judging the case, also emphasised by the fact that the panel of judges has embraced the proposal of the defendant’s lawyers and has recommended that after solving the criminal trial, we would promote the request for review, a situation in relation to which we ask you to observe not only the conviction of the panel of judges that on that day the case should have been judged, but also the excessive rush regarding the resolution of the appeal on the hearing of 10.10.2017. Moreover, the court of appeal also ignored the fact that the court of first instance did not order the clarification of the objections to the expertise report formulated by the undersigned nor did it respond, under Art. 211 Old Code of Civil Procedure to bring the expert to court to provide verbal clarifications, thus violating the provisions of Art. 129 par. 5 of the Old Code of Civil on taking all required steps to find out the truth.
The excessive rush to judge has also manifested in relation to the circumstance that the panel of judges has set the trial of the request for recusal after one and a half hours, respectively at 12.30, suspending the case, with the specification that “we meet after the request for recusal is solved”.
In relation to the circumstance that the judges have known that the residence of the undersigned is in Bucharest, Sector 2, and according to the law, the payment of the stamp fee is made at the tax bodies where the residence is and not in Pitesti, the panel of judges appointed to judge the request for recusal set the hearing deadline one and a half hours later, which reveals the obvious wish of the recused panel of judges that the request for recusal to be judged immediately, and the appeal to be judged on the same day in order to rule a certain prefigured solution.
Finally, from this perspective, the panel of judges has known that the request for recusal shall be rejected (please see the recording of the hearing of 10.10.2017).
In conclusion, from the perspective of all of the aforementioned considerations and arguments, please note the existence of strong indications of the lack of impartiality of the panel of judges, with the consequence of violating my right to a fair trial.
(10) Nuță Corina, Chiornita Gabriela and Ursula Sanda, magistrates of the Court of Appeal of Pitesti, showed an excessive rush unjustified objectively to judge and reject as fast as possible the request for recusal filed against the appeal panel of judges appeal in case no. 3414/285/2011 (see Annex 241 – the request for recusal), even in violation of the legal procedures. This finding undoubtedly results from the fact that on the hearing date 10.10.2017, at 12.30, in the absence of the evidence of the stamp duty from the file, the panel of judges proposed, ex officio, to judge the request and after the trial for me to submit the stamp duty in copy, after that to also submit the original thereof, which shed light on the fact that this panel of judges also did not want anything else but to create the possibility that the magistrates from the panel of judges to solve appeal on the same day and to rule a preset decision in favour of Farmec SA and of its administrators.
(11) Luminita Dan, Judge at the Tribunal of Constanta,
in the case no. 5494/1285/2008, on several hearing dates, she refused to solve the request of the undersigned, as plaintiff, on the suspension of the trial until the resolution of the criminal case no. 2485/300/2011 (see Annex 209), as well as the request for the cancellation of the financial-accounting expertise because the legal procedure for summons has been violated, provided in Art. 208 Code of Civil Procedure, the appointed expert did not respond to the objectives set by the court and the report drafted by them does not contain the opinion of the undersigned’s party expert because Farmec SA did not provide them with the documents necessary for the expertise.
Instead, on the hearing date of 18.09.2012, the trial judge approved the request of the expert Livia Bocian on the increase of the fee by 39,650 lei before ruling on the request for the cancellation of the request, prejudicing me with the amount requested by the expert, which the amount of 3,000 lei adds thereto, which I had paid before, in the context where the expertise, as I have shown above, was drafted in violation of the procedure.
The appointed expert withdrew from my account the amount of 39,650 lei, and afterwards, the trial in the case was suspended by another magistrate until the resolution of the criminal file no. 2485/3001/2011, so that the postponement of solving the requests for suspension and cancellation of the expertise, without justification, by the judge Luminiţa Dan, caused me a patrimonial prejudice amounting 42,650 lei and an injury of the interests in the civil trial. Between 01.01.2015 and 01.01.2016 the judge enjoyed the quality of President of the Tribunal of Constanta.
(12) Adrian Oprea, Judge at the Tribunal of Constanta
did not comply with his own decision given in the case 1514/1285/2012 on the trial hearing date of 26.01.2018
In relation to this circumstance, the appointed expert Marinela Ghita has filed documents (see Annex 226 – communication filed on 1.22.2018) and the expertise submitted to the file on 01.03.2018, but it does not reflect the reality.
The trial judge knows that in the file his aforementioned decision of 26.01.2018 was not met, the requests for evidence submitted in the case have not been solved, which had the role for the court to take legal actions in order to comply with the provision stipulated in Art. 129 par. 5 Old Code of Civil Procedure on finding out the truth and administering the documents and evidence with the expertise that would reflect the reality. It is obvious that we are at the limit of a slippage similar to the other cases in relation to the vitiation of carrying out the civil trial within the limits provided by law on finding the truth, the administration of evidence that reflect the reality and would support the correct solution of the first objective of the expertise, based on documents that the plaintiff fails to present and the magistrate does not order sanctioning the plaintiff nor forcing it to submit them to the case and to the expertise. After 35 trial hearing dates that represent travelling efforts and costs to participate in a fair trial that would be conducted based on evidence and within the limits of the law, Judge Adrian Oprea has admitted in the case the evidence with documents, the register of shares and the register of shareholders that would include the information provided in Art. 177 par. 1 letter a) of Law 31/1990. Although I have submitted evidence that these documents exist at Farmec, the officials of Farmec refuse to file them as evidence in the case, the judge has tolerated the absence of evidence in the case and has not fined the company according to the provisions stipulated in Art. 187 (1) 2 item (e) Old Code of Civil Procedure (see Annex 335 – the request for fining).
The admission of lawyer Claudiu Brehar in the file coincides with the fact that:
– Judge Adrian Oprea did not apply to the defendant Farmec the fine stipulated in the law, in relation to the refusal of the defendant to file the register of shares and the register of shareholders in the form stipulated by the law, although the defendant has this evidence.
– Judge Adrian Oprea did not apply the fine to Farmec as a result of the fact that on the hearing term of 21.02.2017, the expert Marilena Ghita informed the court she has not received the documents necessary for the expertise and also rejected the request of the undersigned to fine the defendant
– Furthermore, Judge Adrian Oprea also ignored the fact that the appointed expert M. Ghita specified in the communication to the Tribunal that he cannot draft expertise without documents:
“…3. The necessary documents, without which the objectives of the expertise cannot be responded to: the register of shares, the register of shareholders with the payments in the form requested under the GD 885/1995 (which is to include the names of the shareholders, the transactions with shares, the serieial numbers of the shares, the payments made, the type, the number and the date of the documents by which the payments have been made….”.
– the contradiction between the judge and the appointed expert on the non-existence of the documents required for the expertise. Judge Adrian Oprea has professionally replaced the appointed expert and said on the hearing date of 09.05.2018 that he has received the documents required for the expertise
“The expert reconstituted the analytical records by each shareholder, since the privatisation until 06.08.2012”,
although in the expertise he specifies that he has not received the requested documents, according to the excerpt:
“However, the expert is unable to formulate a clear and complete opinion on the component 1.2 of the objective 1 – “The identification of the payments made into the account of the actions used”, justified by the impossibility of finalising the actions of reconstructing the analytical evidence in a reasonable time horizon”,
– Judge Adrian Oprea prejudged on the hearing date of 09.05.2018 regarding the rejection of a supplement to the expertise report according to the excerpt:
“By verifying the succession of the procedural documents and how the expert grounded her response to the objectives agreed on the hearing term of 18.06.2014, it is obvious she expressed clear opinions on the specialised aspects under discussion, there being a full concordance between the objectives and answers; to the extent that each response is justified by considerations set out in a broader way, with reference to incidental legislation, NO ADDITIONAL CLARIFICATIONS or a contrary expertise ARE REQUIRED.
in the context where this request was not yet formulated by the plaintiff.
– Judge Adrian Oprea failed to fulfil his own decision given on the aforementioned trial hearing date of 26.01.2018.
The causality relations can only be based on extrajudicial reasons.
From the point of view of the aforementioned requirements, it is obvious Judge Adrian Oprea oscillates between the measures that lead to finding the truth and to a decision based on evidence with filed documents and the evidence based on the documents, not on the illusory appreciations and judge’s measures that result in blocking the submission to the file of the useful and conclusive evidence that were approved by the judge, which would clarify the objectives of the expertise:
- the requests for subscribing the shares that have been used to vote in AGEA of 06.08.2012
- the shareholders’ payments for the account of shares, payment orders and receipts in the context where I submitted evidence in the file that there are shares that have not been subscribed and have been paid by the company and not by the shareholders and the ICCJ decision no. 2390/2008 with force of res judicata finds that there have been shares unpaid and unsubscribed by shareholders, plus there were others
- the legitimacy of the individuals listed in the table of attendance for the AGM of 06.08.2012 in relation to which a number of 167 individuals violate the provisions of Art. 8 of the Statutes of Farmec: the “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”.
1. The judge violated the provision stipulated by Art. 129 par. 5 Old Code of Civil Procedure.
“Judges have the duty to persevere, by all legal means, in order to prevent any error in terms of finding the truth in the case, based on establishing the facts and by correctly applying the law, in order to issue a thorough and legal decision. If the evidence proposed is not sufficient for fully clarifying the trial, the court shall order the parties to complete the evidence. Ex officio, the judge can also bring into parties’ discussion the need to manage other evidence, which he/she may order even if the parties stand against this”.
on the hearing deadline of 03.10.2018, on the occasion of ruling the decision to reject the plaintiff’s requests regarding the supplement of expertise, the exception of the force of res judicata regarding the fact that the ICCJ stated that those shares that WERE NOT PAID BY THE SHAREHOLDERS cannot be considered as paid, but by other legal entities or individuals, other than the shareholders in question. That decision also revealed that the shares that were issued and subsequently assigned but were not based on requests for subscription cannot be considered as subscribed shares so they cannot be regarded as valid securities and the expert’s hearing (see Annex 222 – Request for expert hearing, Annex 221 Supplementary Expertise Request, Annex 228 – the exception of the force of res judicata by which the ICCJ has ruled through the irrevocable decision that the paid shares are only the shares paid by the shareholders, Annex 351 written notes for the hearing date of 03.10.2018), taking into account the following reasons:
- the judge sought to create a favourable context for the defendant’s officials regarding the failure to file the evidence, namely the register of shares and the register of shareholders with payments, information stipulated in Art. 177 1 of Law 31/1990, although by the end of 16.12.2013, the magistrate Adrian Oprea ordered the filing of the registers.
- why? For the individuals in the Turdean and Pantea families as managers and directors of Farmec held 0.4% of the Farmec shares and acquired 63% as a result of the fact that they used shares unsubscribed and unpaid by the shareholders for voting in the AGEA meetings, in violation of Art. 101 of Law 31/1990, and acquired those shares that were not subscribed by the shareholders, which were paid by Farmec (see Annex 223 – Examples of payment orders, Farmec payments to the Farmec Association PAS), see Annex 338 – from the register of shares of 82,000 shares at the disposal of Farmec PAS and were later transferred on the names of Turdean Liviu, Turdean Mihaela, Turdean Horea, Turdean Mircea, Turdean Ioana, Pantea Petru Ioana and Bria Sebastian – nephew.
- A number of 167 individuals specified in the table of attendance of the AGEA that is the object of the judicial investigation violate the provisions stipulated in Art. in the statutes of Farmec, ” the shares are transferable only between shareholders” in the sense that they cannot be regarded as paid by shareholders but by other individuals who were not entitled to buy shares, according to the statutes.
- Farmec owns the Register of shares and the Register of shareholders with payments, as I pointed out to the Tribunal by the communication of 25.05.2014, arguing this with the job description sheet and the witness statement of Mrs. Onute Miluca.
- By the conclusion of 16.12.2013, the judge ordered that only the registers of shares and shareholders to be filed
- Judge Adrian Oprea did not fine the legal representative, Art. 187 (1) letter e) the old Code of Civil Procedure and did not force it under Art. 174 Code of Civil Procedure to file the register of shares, the register of shareholders with shareholders’ payments for the account of shares.
- The judge ordered the expertise with the Objective 1: “The identification of the owners and payments made for the account of shares used for expressing the vote on 06.08.2012 and the verification of the compliance with the legal provisions in terms of the accounting, on the transactions with the defendant company’s shares, since the date of privatisation until 06.08.2012”
- The appointed expert M. Ghita mentioned in the communication of 21.02. 2017 that without the register of shares and the register of shareholders, he cannot to carry out the expertise according to the excerpt:
“…3. The necessary documents, without which the objectives of the expertise cannot be responded to: the register of shares, the register of shareholders with the payments in the form requested under the GD 885/1995 (which is to include the names of the shareholders, the transactions with shares, the serieial numbers of the shares, the payments made, the type, the number and the date of the documents by which the payments have been made….”.
- The judge ordered the expert and the Farmec company on 26.01.2018 to request and the defendant to submit the documents not received.
- on 20.02.2018 the expert mentioned that the company did not provide him with the documents requested, the judge requested that the expert would bring the expertise drafted without the documents required by the expert.
The phone conversations in the case 3164/P/2012 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 measures, but you understand what I mean with such MEASURES TO STIMULATE, so that ALL WILL BE IN OUR FAVOUR.”
- The judge requested from the appointed expert the expertise without the documents required by the expert regarding the proof of the subscription of the shares used for voting and the evidence of shareholders’ payment into the account of shares by the shareholders and not by Farmec.
- On 02.04.2018 the appointed expert has filed an expertise (see Annex 217) which does not present any information about: 1) the subscription of shares used to vote; 2) the payment of shares by shareholders; 3) the legitimacy of the individuals specified in the table of attendance in relation to the regulation of Art. 8 of the STATUTES, in order to solve the objective of the expertise set by Judge Adrian Oprea: “The identification of the owners and payments made for the account of shares used for expressing the vote on 06.08.2012 and the verification of the compliance with the legal provisions in terms of the accounting, on the transactions with the defendant company’s shares, since the date of privatisation until 06.08.2012”
2. In the “expertise”, the appointed expert specified on PAGE 19 that he could not have observed whether the shares have been paid by the shareholders because he has not received the documents:
“I mention that in relation to the payment documents, the defendant has not provided the experts with all the documents by means of which the payments have been made (deduction payrolls, bonus payrolls, receipts, payment orders, etc.) taking into account that until the date of this Report, the expert is not in the possession of all the documents regarding the payments, despite the actions taken on the hearing term of 26.01.2018, the expert informed the court that he is unable to formulate a relevant response regarding the payment of the shares…”
The phone conversations in the case 3164/P/2012 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 measures, but you understand what I mean with such MEASURES TO STIMULATE, so that ALL WILL BE IN OUR FAVOUR.”
But the judge shall reject the plaintiff’s action because the “expertise” in the case file found that the shares were paid, failing to state that:
(i) ICCJ has ruled in the decision 2390 of 03.07.2008 with force of res judicata that the shares paid are those shares that have been paid by the shareholders and not by other individuals, according to the excerpt on page 5 of the decision in Annex 224;
“The number of shares subscribed for the additional issuance in 1998 was of 159,719 shares out of a total of 200,000 shares. The number of shares paid for the additional issuance in 1998 is of 184,688 shares out of a total of 200,000 shares “
“In this case, it was established based on the expertise report of the court of appeal, which confirmed the appellee’s statement that out of the 200,000 shares related to the issuance of 1998, 159,719 shares were subscribed and 184,688 shares were paid.
When establishing the payments, it was not correctly taken into account the compensation report with SC AUREXIM in the amount of 12,750,000 lei, because it was not a shareholder of Farmec SA, correctly applying the provisions of Art. 205 of Law 31/1990.”
(ii) The appointed expert mentioned that he had not received the documents requested from Farmec to find out whether the shareholders had paid their shares and that Art. 101 of Law 31/1990 states that a paid action gives a right to vote. Excerpt from page 19 of the expertise: “I mention that in relation to the payment documents, the defendant has not provided the experts with all the documents by means of which the payments have been made (deduction payrolls, bonus payrolls, receipts, payment orders, etc.) taking into account that until the date of this Report, the expert is not in the possession of all the documents regarding the payments, despite the actions taken on the hearing term of 26.01.2018, the expert informed the court that he is unable to formulate a relevant response regarding the payment of the shares”
3. The practice of damaging the procedural interests and prejudicing the plaintiff by the judge from the Tribunal of Constanta.
- on 09.05.2018 Judge Adrian Oprea rejected the filing of the evidence, a situation that favours the individuals Turdean and Pantea from Farmec, who decided, after having used for voting some shares unsubscribed and unpaid by the shareholders as well as individuals who are not legitimate shareholders.
- Judge Aida Iolanda Slata rejected the request for recusal of Judge Adrian Oprea with untrue remarks. Also read about Judge Aida Slata (Chapter VI, item 5 (13)).
- In the civil case 5494/1285/2009, Judge Luminita Dan, Civil Division II, on the hearing date of 18.09.2012, brought me an injury of interests but also the patrimonial prejudicewith the amount of 42,650 lei, the expert’s fee before judging the request for the cancellation of the expertise, because she questioned and approved the appointed expert’s request for increasing the fee (see annex 207 – conclusion of 18.09.2012) by 39,650 lei (equivalent value of 10,000 Euros) before the magistrate would judge the request to cancel the expertise (see Annex 208 – the undersigned’s request of 17.09.2012), in the context where the judge was informed that the expert had drawn up the expertise in violation of Art. 208 Old Code of Civil Procedure on summoning the party, as well as before trying the request for suspending the trial until the resolution of the criminal case 2485/300/2011 (see annex 209) filed by the plaintiff on April 2, 2012, 170 days before, which was subsequently admitted to the file by another magistrate
4. Is the Tribunal of Constanta a place of justice, and the judges some missionaries of the truth, or is it becoming a building where thefts receive legitimacy with the help of venerable individuals who wear the magistrate robe, and the plaintiff remains with the expense of more than 100,000 lei, a financial effort manifested by the fees of appointed expert, party expert, lawyer fees, travel expenses for 36 trial hearing dates????
(13) Judge Aida Iolanda Slate – Judge at the Tribunal of Constanta
falsely presented in the conclusion (see annex 352) the reasons for the refusal of the undersigned’s request for the recusal of magistrate Adrian Oprea (see Annex 334), a circumstance in relation to which the magistrate did not seek to try my request, but the rejection of the request for recusal and motivating the request for recusal was a formal matter. Please also read about the Tribunal of Constanta (Chapter V, item 10.7).
(14) Aurica Voinescu, judge, president of the Civil Division at the Tribunal of Brasov
has violated the procedure provided for in Art. 169 Old Code of Civil Procedure in the pending case no. 2930/1285/2011, because she did not administer the expertise evidence directly in the file, on the hearing date of 09.10.2013 she rejected the request for evidence with the expertise, on the grounds that “She rejects the evidence with the accounting expertise as not being relevant, conclusive and useful to the cause requested by plaintiff” (according to the excerpt from the Conclusion), while on the hearing date of 07.05.2014 she considered she is waiting for the evidence with the expertise “served” in another file, but which does not reflect the reality in the civil case 3414/1285/2011 pending before another court.
This magistrate, who was promoted to the position of President of the Civil Division in 2014, and in 2017, her mandate was extended for another three years, discouraged the plaintiff to exercise his right to defence based on evidence administered directly before the court, in order to find out the truth, and, on the hearing date of 18.11.2015, she ordered the plaintiff to not file further requests for evidence under the sanction of fine, thus violating the express provision of Art. 224 Code of Civil Procedure, according to which “the Court is forced in any trial to bring to the parties discussion all the requests, exceptions, factual circumstances or legal grounds presented by them, according to the law, or invoked ex officio”.
(15) Marcela Comsa, Judge at the Court of Appeal of Brasov.
The magistrate Marcela Comsa is a co-author of a commercial paper “Tratat practic de insolventa” (Practical treaty of insolvency) of 1136 pages, together with Speranta Aurora Munteanu, Flavius Iancu Motu and Mihaela Saracut, PhD.
- Speranta Aurora Munteanu is a business partner of KPMG Romania. Farmec annually transfers to KPMG amounts of money of more than 200,000 lei, the equivalent value of 45,000 Euros. KPMG does not reveal in the reports for the audit at Farmec SA the noncompliance with the law by the officials of Farmec.
- On the hearing date of 03.10.2018 in the case 2930/1285/2011, magistrate Marcela Comsaformally abstained to create the appearance of impartiality. In fact, the colleagues in the panel of judges continued the trial.
have received the case 2930/1258/2011 for trying the appeal (see Annex 336 – the appeal). Although four appeal panel of judges operate at the Court of Appeal of Brasov, the management board of the Court of Appeal assigned to this panel of judges the case 2930 which I am party of. Under these conditions, the provisions of Art. 11 and 139 of Law 304/2004 on random assignment were not complied with. Please also read about the Court of Appeal of Brasov (Chapter V, item 10.11).
On the hearing date of 03.10.2018, the magistrates Laura Feteanu, Codruta Voda, Carmen Bujan rejected the request for evidence with documents from the Tribunal of Brasov by means of which this court would prove that the file 2930 had been assigned randomly, in violation of the provisions of Art. 11 and 139 of Law 304/2004, taking into account that from the documents sent to the Tribunal of Brasov, it does not result that a legal assignment was done, but rather a preferential assignment of the case 2930 to the judge Aurica Voinescu who rejected the requests for evidence, awaiting 34 trial hearing date for an expertise to be carried out at another court, an expertise that does not reflect the reality, the expertise “served” to the opposite party, which the magistrate intends to take into account when rejecting the action, thus violating the principle of immediacy. Judge Aurica Voinescu received two mandates of division president at the Tribunal of Brasov during the waiting period of those 34 trial hearing deadlines.
On the hearing date of 03.10.2018, the judges Laura Feteanu, Codruta Voda, Carmen Bujan rejected the request for evidence with documents from the Tribunal of Brasov reasoning that it did not matter how the file had been assigned and the violation of the law on the lack of random assignment is not a reason for cassation, although the High Court of Cassation and Justice has ruled in several cases, in the sense that the failure to observe the legal provisions on the assignment of the case is a reason for nullity of the decision ruled under these conditions no. 255/05.07.2017 ruled in the case 2185/2/2015. Regarding the case 2930/1285/2011, there was no random assignment at the Tribunal nor at the Court of Appeal of Brasov, the provision stipulated in Art. 11 and 139 of Law 304/2004 has not been complied with and the case has been assigned to certain individuals, both at the Tribunal of Brasov and at the Court of Appeal of Brasov, with the result of rejecting the evidence, rejecting the action and forcing the payment of fees, I cannot accept that the property is not protected in Romania through a fair trial and the directed justice has the effect of damaging the interests and prejudicing the patrimony of the individuals who have been robbed by people from the private environment.
The magistrates Laura Feteanu, Codruta Voda, Carmen Bujan from Court of Appeal of Brasov refused to inform the defendant Farmec to bring to the file the register of shares and register of shareholders that would contain information, according to Art. 177 of the Law 31, although this evidence has been approved by the Tribunal of Brasov as conclusive and useful to clarifying the case, but refused to file them and the court did not apply the provision stipulated by Art. 174 old Code of Civil Procedure, in the sense that it did not apply the fine nor did it consider the plaintiff’s claims as proven, who showed that the defendant has the register of shares and the register of shareholders with payments, according to Art. 177/Law 31 (Annex 337 – job description sheet and the witness statement of Mrs. Onute Miluca)
For the ruling deadline of 10.10.2018 I filed the request for re-docketing the case 2930 in order to administer the evidence and apply Art. 174 Code of Civil Procedure (see Annex 353).
(17) Judge Magdalena Diana Bulancea, by the decision no. 452/12.07.2009 of the CSM was transferred from the Court of Appeal of Iasi to the Court of Appeal of Bucharest, replacing the magistrate Carata Glodeanu, who retired from the same department.
In this situation, the cases in progress at the panel of judges of judge Gheorghe Grecu were assigned to the magistrate Magdalena Diana Bulancea, among which the case no. 27411/2/2005 between the Prestige Trading and the Competition Council, and this magistrate took over the files of the directed panel of judges before retirement, by the magistrate Carata Glodeanu, an assignment that was done in violation of the provisions of Art.11 and Art.139 of Law 304/2004 because Gheorghe Grecu continued to act as judge in the same division, as well as in violation of the decision 452/12.03.2009 of the CSM according to which the cases unresolved by the retired magistrate Carata Glodeanu were assigned to the judge transferred to the vacant position, namely Bulancea Diana Magdalena.
This transfer of cases in violation of the law, from Judge Gheorghe Grecu to Judge Bulancea Magdalena was done as a result of the fact that magistrate Gheorghe Grecu, in other files similar to Prestige Trading and the Competition Council, had ordered legal solutions but unfavourable to corporative companies, including the case of Colgate Palmolive, significant being the decision made in the case no. 3060/2/2007, by which he rejected the request of Colgate Palmolive Romania SRL to close the investigation initiated ex officio by the Competition Council through the Order of the President no. 36/2007.
Lady Judge Magdalena Diana Bulancea is the wife of Mr. Bulancea Marius, who in his turn is a permanent participant to the conferences of the Freedom House NGO and “…collects money from Freedom House for various collaborations…”, according to the information existing on the Lumea Justitiei website, and among the funders and sponsors of Freedom House, there are also American companies.
Currently, Magdalena Diana Bulancea is a judge in Brussels and Marius Bulancea is a Department chief prosecutor within the National Anticorruption Directorate.
(18) Georgiana Tudor, Judge at the Court House of Sector 1 in Bucharest
received, for resolution, the criminal file no. 17522/299/2005 (having as its object the indictment of some administrators of Farmec SA), where she ruled the solution of acquittal (see Annex 308 – Notes of written conclusions and the sentence 1591/04.07.2007) and no. 23011/299/2007 (having as defendants members of the Competition Council Plenum), where she maintained the ordinance of the PÎCCJ of removal from the criminal prosecution (see Annex 308 – Notes of written conclusions and annex to the sentence of 1591/04.07.2007), under the conditions where the appointment of this magistrate for trying the two cases was done in violation of the provision stipulated by Art. 139 of Law 304/2004 on the random assignment throughout the trial
Against magistrate Georgiana Tudor, who was promoted as Judge in the Criminal Department II of the Court of Appeal of Bucharest, we drafted a notification addressed to the National Agency for Integrity, registered under the no. 140/11.01.2012 (see Annex 257) concerning the incompatibility with the her quality of judge and of her sister Stefania Tudor (see Annex 257), taking into account that Tudor Georgiana failed to comply with the legal obligations resulting from the provisions of the Law no. 303/2004 on the status of the magistrates, because she also has other positions or performs activities prohibited by Art. 7 of the law, respectively she erroneously filled out the wealth and interest statements, which places here in the scope of incompatibilities provided by the law.
The National Agency for Integrity did not submit me any answer as a result of the aforementioned complaint, which justifies the appreciation that Judge Georgiana Tudor benefited from a privileged treatment regarding the application of the legal provisions by this institution, a situation that cannot be dissociated from the circumstance that the same judge has received two different criminal cases in violation of the legal random assignment procedure and has ruled decisions favourable to the parties that had and still have the support of some decision makers in state institutions or former or current intelligence service officers, who may lead to adopting illegal decisions, but which are favourable to protecting the financial interests of the individuals involved.
(19) Judge Mihai Valentin, from the Tribunal of Bucharest, was appointed in the case 12283/3/2016 without this case being randomly assigned in accordance with the provisions of Law 304/2004 and from the Internal Regulations of the courts, with the result of this magistrate ruling a sentence to confirm the solution of classification on the tax evasion deeds in a continuous form, a decision adopted in the absence of the criminal prosecution file consisting of 53 volumes, aware of this irregularity (see Annex 309 – the request of the undersigned – injured party on the hearing date of 14.09.2016).
(20) Judge Adrian Bordea, President of the panel of judges at the High Court of Cassation and Justice, consisting of Adrian Bordea, Gabriela Stecoza and Ana Savin, rejected on 03.10.2005 the action of the undersigned on the AGA decision to record the subscriptions and the payments of the illegal increases by limiting the undersigned, under the conditions where the judge admitted that on 07.06.2005 the High Court of Cassation and Justice accepted the action and cancelled the Shareholders’ Decision of 30.01.2003 to increase the share capital by 400,000 shares regarding the same illegal share capital increase. Judge Adrian Bordea is the son of General Aron Bordea, the former head of the Political – Department I of the DSS – the State Security Department (Romanian: Directia Securitatii Statutlui) during the Communist regime.
Later, Judge Adrian Bordea was promoted as president of Division II of the High Court of Cassation and Justice and the president of the Superior Council of Magistracy.
(21) Judge Ioan Turcu, as vice president of the Court of Appeal of Cluj and President of the panel of judges who solved the case no. 6110/2003, ruled the decision no. 39/2004 (Annex 310), favouring the managers of Farmec, by which a decision of the AGA was validated, to establish an increase of the share capital, under the conditions where, previously, by decision no. 180/2003 (Annex 248), the Court of Appeal of Oradea had definitively and irrevocably cancelled the decision to approve the same increase of the share capital, and subsequently, after leaving the magistracy, Turcu Ion has collected more than RON 200,000 from Farmec SA, as the lawyer of the defendants Liviu Turdean, Petru Iacob Pantea and of the company (see annex 311 – contract).
(22) Dana Iarina Vartires, Camelia Bratu and Adriana Denes – judges at the High Court of Cassation and Justice
The panel of judges in the case 3060/2/2007 consisted of the judges Camelia Bratu, Adriana Denes and Dana Iarina Vratires, the latter being a member of the managing board of the Romanian-American School ASEBUS (according to the excerpt – please see Annex 173), a circumstance that does not exclude a connection of interest likely to contribute to violating the Decision no. 2502/12.05.2009 of the ICCJ, which changed the decision of the Court of Appeal no. 1634/28.05.2008, which has previously rejected the request of Colgate Palmolive to close the investigation initiated at the Competition Council by Order 36 of the President of the Competition Council.
(1) Rovana Plumb, Interim Minister at the Ministry of Education and Vice-President of the Social Democratic Party, former Deputy Prime Minister of the Government and deputy in the Parliament of Romania, and in the past Minister in several Romanian Governments. The officials of Farmec SA transferred the amount of 700,000 Euros to an account with an OFFSHORE regime in CYPRUS in relation to the police, the prosecutor’s office and the Office for money laundering have “omitted” to clarify if the money returned to Turdean’s pocket, to Rovana Plumb’s account or into the account of individuals close to them.
In the criminal case no. 3164/P/2012 of the Prosecutor’s Office attached to the Tribunal of Bucharest, police officers and supervisory prosecutors of the Prosecutor’s Office attached to the Tribunal of Bucharest did not request, by rogatory commission, to establish the banking circuit and final destination of the amount of 700,000 Euros transferred from the account of FARMEC SA into the account of Allplington Investment Limited, with the registered office in Cyprus, a transfer carried out as a result of some bilateral contracts concluded between Farmec SA, Allplington Investment Limited and Gerovital Cosmetics SA in Romania, where the former minister ROVANA PLUMB had participations and has interests even now, contracts that may not reflect actual commercial transactions (see Annex 312). In the same criminal file, the National Office for Preventing and Fighting Against Money Laundering has submitted information and documents to the IGPR-DIF, wherefrom it results that from the amount transferred by Farmec in Cyprus, the amount of 60,000 Euros was transferred to Romania into an account opened at ALPHA BANK, however, without specifying the beneficiary’s name, respectively that of the account owner and the payment justification documents.
These matters, although they were conclusive for the IGPR- DICE officers, later on after the incomplete answer received from the Office for the Preventing and Fighting Against Money Laundering, which confirms that 600,000 Euros returned to Romania, the police officers Catalin Ciongaru and Alexandru Popescu and the prosecutor Alexandra Carmen Lancranjan “abandoned” the continuation of the investigation to find out the names of those individuals who benefited from the money, according to the excerpt from the IGPR-DICE request to the Office for Preventing and Fighting Against Money Laundering:
“What is the full circuit/route of the amounts of money, transfers from the account of the ALLPINGTON INVESTMENT LIMITED company to the end user, by indicating the individual/company to whom/which the amounts have been paid, the value and the justification of the object of payment/explanations” (see Annexes 63 and 64 – IGPR Police request and excerpt from the answer of ONPCB).
After the revolution in December 1989, Rovana Plumb became commercial manager at SC Miraj SA and became the best business and confidential friend of Mrs. Dana Năstase, the daughter of a former Minister of Agriculture in the Ceausescu Era. The press at the time reported that the two friends tried to monopolise the two major cosmetics factories in Romania, Miraj Bucharest and Farmec Cluj, in the first years of cunning capitalism, directly or through interposed people. The fact is that during that period, SC Miraj SA went bankrupt and was privatised for nothing, Rovana Plumb becoming the main shareholder and President of the Board of Directors in the newly created company, SC Gerovital Cosmetics SA. Also during that period, it was written about the suspicious alienation of the license for the well-known Gerovital products patented by the academician Ana Aslan.
Due to the closeness to the Năstase family, during the 2000-2004 PSD governance, Rovana Plumb was promoted to the position of president of the National Authority for Consumer Protection, having the rank of Secretary of State. In this position, for four years, she slashed and burnt as she pleased, exercising thematic controls with particularly political motivation. The maximum proof of the closeness and loyalty of Rovana Plumb was her appointment as a financial representative of the presidential campaign in 2004 of the former Prime Minister Adrian Năstase. Thanks to her protector Adrian Năstase, Rovana Plumb was elected PSD deputy in 2004 and President of the National Women’s Organisation of the PSD, a position that secured her entry into the National Permanent Bureau of the PSD, as vice-president of the party.
The name of Rovana Plumb is also related to several corruption cases of political resonance. Thus, as a financial representative, she was familiar with the business with electoral materials manufactured by Eurographica, which the former Prime Minister Adrian Năstase had been convicted for. Her name also appears in the bribery case of the ex-PSD deputy of Dâmboviţa, Ion Stan. More recently, Rovana Plumb is accused, as Minister of Environment, to have illegally appointed the members of the Board of Directors and the General Manager of the National Forest Administration – Romsilva, Adam Crãciunescu, who is criminally prosecuted in the file of fraudulent restitutions of more than 300 million Euros in Bacău County, under the conditions where the attributions in this regard were of the Minister delegated for Waters, Forests and Fisheries (at that time Ms. Lucia Varga). http://www.avertisment.net/ceausismul-coafat-al-rovanei-plumb/
Excerpt from the Secunda publication: http://www.secundatv.ro/
“Rovana Plumb had intervened at the Department for Monitoring the Excise Duties and Customs Operations and at ANAF for the fiscal inspection at FARMEC to be carried out under” imposed ” conditions, and not ” freely “.
Mrs. Plumb is in Mr. Plăiaşu’s favours. The policemen ask for help from Plăiaşu
Starting from this information somewhat normal for Romania – a minister to put pressure on some institutional managers – we reached a “honey jar” which the political flies roam around like crazy. This is apparently a legal, normal transaction between three companies: The former MIRAJ, FARMEC and ALLPLINGTON Investment Limited, an offshore based in Cyprus. And the relationship of Mrs. Rovana Plumb is one entirely and really special!
Neculae Plăiaşu is a “resourceful man” for political tricks. Plăiaşu was a “good Romanian citizen” both at the head of the ANAF and of the Office.
Six days before Christmas in 2012, the IGPR police officers, Commissioner Catalin Ciongaru and the Police Manager, Chief-Commissioner Claudiu Scarlatache sent a communication to the National Office for Preventing and Fighting Against Money Laundering (ONPCSP). In the communication, the police officers were requesting, under the applicable law, help from the Office in order to elucidate the route “travelled” by the 700,000 Euros paid by FARMEC to the offshore ALLPLINGTON company.”
(2) 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 Mr. Cristian Diaconescu’s signatures, ordered the retroactive exemption from the payment of customs duties in the amount of 1,193,700 USD see Annex 313), 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 carried out on 10.06.1998 , according to the invoice/external invoice (see Annex 314), 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 done 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 the crime of 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.
(3) Ionut Misa, minister of Public Finance between 2017-2018, currently President of ANAF, general manager of the Directorate for the Administration of Large Taxpayers in 2014 – 2017 (DGAMC) has ignored twice to give in the course of the requests of the Specialised Tribunal of Cluj in the civil case 3414/1285/2011 to carry out the verifications ordered by the court. Thus, although in the period in which the tribunal issued the requests, Farmec SA was under a fiscal inspection, the General Manager of the DGAMC, Mr. Ionut Misa tolerated the non-performance of the fiscal verifications ordered by the court, disregarding the observations of the Court of Accounts regarding the lack of any verifications at Farmec SA on the consumption of alcohol in the manufacturing process, documents, statements and invoices issued by Farmec for the products that contain alcohol.
During an undersigned’s audience in 2014, Mr. Ionut Misa requested me to send by e-mail the notifications unresolved by the DGAMC, which I had previously registered with a stamp at the DGAMC. We sent the petitions on 08.09.2014, at 1.29 PM via e-mail, but Ionut Misa did not order the performance of verifications after this information either.
The Directorate for Integrity of ANAF informed me through the communication no. 3770/11.10.2016 (see Annex 21) that it is confirmed that the DGAMC did not carry out verifications on the notifications of the undersigned, the period of time during which the Minister Ionut Misa held the position of General Manager of the DGAMC – the competent department to carry out these fiscal verifications.
“… the communications/notifications you have formulated and registered with the DGAMC under the no. 1149815/6.5.14, no. 116426727.06.2014, no. 11774381/25.7.14 and no. 667551/29.07.2015 …the matter you have notified has been confirmed, also in conjunction with the large number of reported matters 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 in and action of internal control.
In the DGAMC no fiscal verifications were carried out related to the fact that the officials of Farmec did not submit to the Department for Monitoring the Excise Duties and Customs Operations the documents presented at item 22 par. 34 of the Methodological Norms for the Application of the Fiscal Code on the occasion of the requests for the return of excise duties nor thorough verifications on the fictitious records specified in the notifications to the DGAMC of 2014, 2015 and 14.09.2017 (see Annex 18).
The passivity of Minister Ionut Misa can be determined by the fact that Ionut Misa was employed in the private sector in a commercial company that was co-shareholder in a viticulture farm at Murfatlar, which, according to the DNA, damaged the public budget with 600,000,000 lei. The Murfatlar-Euroavipo Group was the main supplier of undistorted alcohol of Farmec SA, over 1,500,000 litres, in relation to which ANAF has not performed any verification so far, ignoring the documents and the evidence where it results from that the aforementioned quantity of alcohol has not been distorted.
The President of ANAF, Ionut Misa, held in the folder for more than three months the proposal of the Directorate for Integrity of ANAF on notifying the National Anticorruption Directorate in the case of the officials of ANAF who carried out controls at Farmec and returned the excise duties without Farmec submitting the documents stipulated in the Law on between 2007 and 2018 and Mr. Ionut Misa – president of ANAF sent back the internal investigation report without any motivation but with the written recommendation on a post-it “MEASURES WITHOUT THE DNA“. Please also read about the Ionut Misa (Chapter VI, item 1).
7. DEPUTIES AND SENATORS
(1) The deputies Claudiu Iulian Manda – PSD deputy, head of Parliamentary Commission for the Control over the Activity of the SRI did not respond as a result of the undersigned’s petition of 10/30/2017 Marian Gheorghe Cusca, Attila Verestoy, Radu Babus, Ioan Cristian Chirtes, Doina Elena Federov, Gabriel Horia Nasra, Cezar Florin Preda, Lucian Stanciu Viziteu, members of the Permanent Common Commission of the Chamber of Deputies and the Senate for exercising the parliamentary control over the activity of the Romanian Intelligence Service were notified through the petition of 30.10.2017 (see Annex 61) but I was not called for hearings or for additional information nor did I receive an answer so far.
The lack and the refusal to exercise the parliamentary control by Claudiu Manda cannot be dissociated as CAUSALITY connections 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 service 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 the private property 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 godmother of Cimino’s children and Fanel Trandafir also known as Cimino, who annually benefits from large amounts of money resulted from the rental of 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 from the video clips posted on the Internet:
“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 on orders between interlops and gang burglaries. This operation is openly led by a group of interloper “godparents” who actually run the city. They formed an alliance, known as the “Brotherhood“. Cimino, Gigioc, Caiac, Mavrichie, Rosianul and the Donkey (Romanian: Magaru). They have all been accused of arms trafficking, blackmail, money laundering and other financial frauds”
Although the document of the undersigned fully informed the Commission for the Control over the Activity of the SRI not only about the inaction of the Romanian Intelligence Service, but also informed about strong indications regarding the guided control of the state institutions by officers and politicians in terms of defrauding the state budget and the private property, there was no reaction from the deputy Claudiu Manda, the President of the Parliamentary Commission, I have not been heard, officers of the SRI have not been heard, nor have remedy measures been ordered or the parliamentary control exercised.
(2) The deputies Iancu Caracota, Emilia Arcan, Costel Soptica, Catalin Fenechiu, Remus Gotiu, Virginel Iordache, Lucian Romascanu, Ioan Stan, Ioan Talpos, Adrian Tutuianu and
(3) Senatorii Ion Balan, Valentin Boboc, Lavinia Cosma, Dumitru Lovin, Costel Dunava, Adrian Prisnel, Istvan Antal, Octavian Goga, George Ionescu, Marius Margarit, Elvira Sarapatin, in the Commissions for the investigation of abuses, fighting the corruption and petitions in the Chamber of Deputies and the Senate of Romania, although they have been notified with the document of 17.10.2017 (see Annex 77), which contains information on the institutions that do not fulfil their attributions established by the law, had no reaction and failed to conduct any legal step, I was not contacted to be heard or to provide additional information.
(4) Deputy Georgian Pop, President of the Permanent Commission of the Chamber of Deputies and the Senate for exercising the parliamentary control over the activity of the Romanian Intelligence Service, during the mandate between 2013 and 2017, a period when I notified the commission with the documents registered under the no. 1277/02.04.2015 and 3038/07.06.2016, gave me a formal reply to the petitions of the undersigned of 24.06.2014 and of 15.10.2014 to the Parliamentary Commission for the Control over the Activity of the SRI were not discussed by the members of this parliamentary commission for the verification by the deputies whether the documents that were communicated were subject to the verification by the officers of the Romanian Intelligence Service and, as a consequence, whether the SRI has notified the competent authorities.
8. INDIVIDUALS IN THE MANAGEMENT OF THE COURT OF ACCOUNTS
(1) Mihai Busuioc, the President of the Court of Accounts, did not order the legal measures provided by the Regulation on the Operation of the Court of Accounts (Art. 19 par. 1 and Art. 21 par. (1) letter o)², Art. 107₃ and Art. 1714), and in Art. 291 Code of Criminal Procedure, according to the notification and request of the undersigned registered under the no. 120801 on 11.01.2018 (see Annex 16), which were solved just like the previous petitions.
(2) Cosmin Nicula, Vice-President of the Court of Accounts and Coordinator of the Department II, which carries out the audit of the Ministry of Finance, ANAF, Justice, etc., did not order the legal measures required as a result of the Court’s control and the findings made on that occasion.
The fact that Simona Nicula, the wife of the vice-president, aspires to be transferred from Otopeni Customs Office to the position of Deputy Director at the Directorate for Integrity of ANAF, suggests that this promotion could be the reward of some intelligence service officers in relation to the circumstance that the Court of Accounts has not resolved the notification of the undersigned on January 11, 2018 nor previous petitions, and has not requested photocopies of each file on the requests of Farmec SA for returns of excise duties and the related documents, regarding the actual alcohol consumption, the fiscal control reports and the decisions for the return of excise duties, respectively for the period of 2007-2018. All these measures were necessary given that the Court of Accounts, in relation to the period of 2007-2011 and the documents I have submitted to the Court of Accounts (see Annex 16), wherefrom it can be seen that Farmec SA benefits from exemptions from the payment of excise duties although it does not present to the Department for Monitoring the Excise Duties and Customs Operations, the documents regarding the actual consumption stipulated in item 22 par. 34 of the Methodological Norms for the Application of the Fiscal Code.
(3) Dan Firtescu, counsellor of accounts and Alexandru Costache, Manager of Department II – Public Finance, although in the audience of 01.11.2016 at 11.00 AM promised me the establishment of the remedy and expansion remedies for the audit of the Court of Accounts for the period of 2012-2018, as well as requesting from the Department for Monitoring the Excise Duties and Customs Operations the photocopy of each case for the return of excise duties, in fact the management of the Court of Accounts did not request the notification and petition of 11.01.2018 (see Annex 16) did not request photocopies of each file regarding the requests for the return of excise duties and the related documents, regarding the actual consumption of alcohol, fiscal control reports and the decisions for the return of excise duties corresponding to the period of 2007- 2018 and did not order any extension of the audit for the period of 2012 -2018 nor the notification of the prosecutor’s office as a result of the internal investigation report concluded on August 1, 2018 by the Department for Integrity of ANAF.
(4) Alexandru Costache – Director of the Department II of the Court of Accounts, did not order the notification of the Prosecutor’s Office, the extension of the period of 2012-2018 regarding the practice of Farmec not to submit the documents provided by the law regarding the actual consumption of alcohol but to benefit however from the ANAF of decisions to return the excise duties, did not request the evidence from ANAF and under Art. 291 Code of Criminal Procedure did not notify the Prosecutor’s Office.
9. INDIVIDUALS IN THE OFFICE FOR PREVENTING AND FIGHTING AGAINST MONEY LAUNDERING
(1) Daniel Marius Staicu, President of the Office for Preventing and Fighting Against Money Laundering, has not informed the Prosecutor’s Office on the payments of Farmec to offshore accounts, as a result of the undersigned’s notification of 30.10.2017 (see Annex 65).
(2) Radu Constantin Catalin, member of the MJ
(3) Marius Vorniceanu, representative member of the Court of Accounts
(4) Nicolae Plaiasu – former president of the Office for Preventing and Fighting Against Money Laundering has not submitted to the Prosecutor’s Office the information requested in the case 3164/P/2012 although the police requested from the Office for Preventing and Fighting Against Money Laundering the full information on the “… full circuit/transfer of the amounts of money, transfers from the account of ALLPINGTON INVESTMENT LIMITED to the end user by specifying the individual/company to whom/which the amounts have been paid, the value and the justification of the object of the payment/explanations”.
Horia Georgescu, president of the National Agency for Integrity between 2012 and 2015, the time period during which the Romanian Agency for Integrity either did not respond to the undersigned’s notifications, or formally answered, failing to carry out the necessary legal verifications required to determine whether the magistrates are in a state of incompatibility, taking into account that the wealth and interest statements have not been filled out in accordance with the legal provisions, with the aim of presenting factual situations that do not correspond to the reality, in order to hide corruption deeds.
Within the notifications, violations of the law in relation to the following magistrates were signalled: Georgiana Tudor (sentence no. 1591/04.07.2007 and sentence no 201/03.03.2008), Iuliana Riciu, Adrian Bordea, Isabelle Tocan, Mihaela Saracut, Delia Marusciac, Francisca Vasile, Adriana Bajan, Claudia Jderu, Georgiana Pulbere, Dumitru Mirancea, Camelia Cengher, Nicolae Durbaca.
The individuals specified in the notifications were suspect of being incompatible with the quality of magistrates. Although the matters notified were not cleared by the National Agency for Integrity, the magistrates continued to issue decisions as magistrates.
Horia Georgescu mentioned on the TV broadcast of 28.02.2018 on Antena 3 station that during the period of exercising his mandate as president of the National Agency for Integrity he had regular meetings with the Director of the Romanian Intelligence Service, Mr. George Maior, based on the investigations being processed at the National Agency for Integrity.
According to the public statement of Mr. Horia Georgescu, at the National Agency for Integrity, the discussions with Mr. George Maior, Director of the SRI, took into account the manner of solving some of the notifications pending at the Agency and the non-resolution or formal resolution without verifications of the violation of the law by the individuals mentioned in the complaints, accredits the premise that some magistrates, including those mentioned in the notifications to ANI, enjoyed some protection from the representatives of the two institutions, which does not exclude extrajudicial agreements underlying the decisions they made in the case of the undersigned, legal decisions that I have highlighted in Chapter 43 regarding the National Agency for Integrity.
11. INDIVIDUALS FROM THE COMPETITION COUNCIL
Bogdan Marius Chiritoiu – President of the Competition Council
1) The incompatibility of Bogdan Marius Chiritoiuas president of the Competition Council results from the following reasons:
The first reason of incompatibility arises from the failure to meet the provision specified in Art. 17 Par. (3) of Law 21/1996 valid between 2009 and until 29.12.2015 and Art. 15 par. 1 item g) of Law 21/1996, valid from 29.12.2015 until now, according to which the president, the members of the Plenum of the Competition Council must have an active, economic and/or legal experience of 10 (ten) years, and Bogdan Marius Chiriţoiu was not fulfilling this condition, as it results from his CV and his wealth statement.
The second reason for incompatibility arises from the noncompliance with the provisions of Art. 17 par. (5) of the competition law valid from 2009 until 29.12.2015, Art.15 par. (6) of the competition law valid after 29.12.2015 until now, according to which any member of the Plenum of the Competition Council is prohibited to own consulting companies, directly or through intermediaries or to be part of other Associations that might affect his Decisions as a member and President of the plenum, because the legislator established that the members of the Council Plenum must be INDEPENDENT.
The acting President of the Competition Council, Bogdan Marius Chiritoiu, was appointed president of the Competition Council on April 27th, 2009, when he was an associate and directly had 33% in the Creator Consulting SRL company and 90% in the BMC Consultant SRL company (the administrator of this company being the father himself – Constantin Chiritoiu), both companies having as object of activity declared as: “business and management consulting activities”.
On May 20th, 2009, becoming aware of the obvious incompatibility with the position in which he was appointed, Bogdan Marius Chiriţoiu summons the general meeting of the associates and declared that he gives up the social shares he had in the two companies by assigning them to his father, namely Mr. Chiritoiu Constantin, which is a legal artifice, because the acting President of the Council has not suspended the activity of the consultancy company, but he transferred it to an illegally interposed individual, in relation to the provision specified in Art. 17 Par. (5) specified above
The third reason for the incompatibility is also that Bogdan Marius Chiritoiu is member of the Romanian ASPEN Institute since the same year 2009, but also a member of the National Committee for Development, contrary to the provisions of Art. 17 Par. (5) of the Competition Law valid until 29.12.2015 and Art. 15 par. (6) of the Competition Law valid as of 29.12.2015 until now, which prohibit the appurtenance to any economic structure of the individual who deals with the position of president and member of the Plenum of the Competition Council, precisely to protect the independence of the members of the Competition Council.
2) Bogdan Marius Chiritoiu, president of the Competition Council, by order no. 7/2010 (see Annex 72), ordered the archiving and concealment of those pieces of evidence obtained as a result of an IT search that reveals agreements and exclusions from the shelves of some retail networks, as well as the refusal to negotiate:
“by 31.01.2010, regardless of the medium they are on, the documents forming the file of the investigation initiated by order no. 36/2007 shall be archived and shall no longer be used in any other procedure of the Competition Council” (please see Annex 72)
3) Bogdan Marius Chiritoiu, President of the Competition Council refused to solve the complaint of Prestige and Galic formulated in 2011 and registered under the no. RG-17050 (please see Annex 73), as a result of observing some agreements between the large retailers and product category leaders in relation to the practices of excluding the products of certain competitors from the shelf and to the refusal to negotiate with certain economic agents, the existence and constant increase in value and percentage of some shelf fees, contractual clauses that are abusive, non-reciprocal and unequal in relation to the fees charged by retailers in West European countries. The President of the Competition Council, Bogdan Marius Chiritoiu, by letter no. 16925 of 13.01.2012 (see Annex 69), informed me of the refusal to initiate the legal investigation, considering the notification and the complaint of our companies as a mere “communication” (please see Annex 74).
4) Bogdan Marius Chiritoiu, the President of the Competition Council, failed to comply with the court decisions given by the sentence 302/2005 of the Court of Appeal and the Irrevocable Decision no. 37/2006 of the ICCJ which stated: “The Competition Council has unjustifiably failed to initiate the investigation…” (see Annexes 4 and 5)
5) Bogdan Marius Chiritoiu, the President of the Competition Council, misinformed the European Commission (please see Annex 75 – letter of the Competition Council to the European Commission).
6) Nathaniel Cornoiu Jitarasu– competition inspector within the Competition Council, opposed that Bogdan Marius Chiritoiu closes the investigation “BANKS” regarding the abuse of the banks in relation to the consumers of credits and established a Note, as a member of the “peer review” commission. The report drafted by Nathaniel Cornoiu has several hundred pages and estimates that prejudicing the consumers reaches amounts of billions of Euros as a result of abusive clauses that do not exclude agreements. The evidence existing in the case on the date of drafting the Report by Nathaniel Cornoiu required the sanctioning of banks and recommending remedial measures for the future.
12. BODY OF EXPERT AND LICENSED ACCOUNTANTS OF ROMANIA
Robert Aurelian Sova, Professor and President of the Body of Expert and Licensed Accountants of Romania, abbreviated CECCAR, did not solve the complaint against the experts Bocian Livia, Pintea Mirela, Dumitrescu Mihaela, Vulpoi Marcel, who follow a joint “MODEL” of carrying out an expertise in the files which Farmec SA is a party of.
In order to understand the weave of interests in which the president of CECCAR and Farmec SA are, I mention that the Curier Fiscal magazine is a business that serves the interests of the following gentlemen: Robert Sova – president of CECCAR, Pantea Petru Iacob – former manager of Farmec SA, succeeded by his son Lucian Pintea, Gabriel Biris, lawyer of Farmec SA, who received a fee of over 700,000 lei, Constantin Tulai, Mihai Ristea – vice president of CECCAR.
Constantin Tulai is a relative of Oana Tulai, associate and administrator of Ikorsoft SRL, headquartered within the Farmec SA company, 16, Henri Barbusse street in Cluj. The administrators of Farmec transferred over 4,000,000 lei to SC Ikorsoft SRL, without any real counterperformance. Of the Curier Fiscal College were also part the said Ioan Turcu, former judge and the lawyer of Farmec SA and of the defendants Liviu Turdean and Pantea Petru Iacob in the case no. 6110/2003, who ruled the Decision of the Court of Appeal of Cluj no. 39/2004, specified above. Among the sponsors/collaborators of this publication, there is also KPMG as well as the civil law firms Biris Goran and Dobrinescu Dobrev SCA, which Farmec has transferred significant amounts of money to.
In the context of these connections, the Body of Exert Accountants managed by the current president of CECCAR, Robert Sova did not solve the complaints formulated against the following expert accountants:
- On 02.11.2012, a complaint was formulated (see Annex 279) against the expert Livia Bocian, a complaint that was regected by the panel of judges consisting of Adrian Opris, Camelia Anton and Gheorghe Spiridon. I filed an appeal on 08.05.2014. The appeal was docketed on trial only after 4 years, on 15.12.2017. Although the appeal was admitted by the decision no. 7 of 28.02.2018 (see Annex 315), it was sent for retrial with the result of issuing a legal decision on the illicit case (see Annex 283 – Written Notes 2018)
- Against the experts Marcel Vulpoi and Gheorghe Mandru, I filed the complaint of 26.10.2016 (see Annex 316). The expertise report in the case 3164/P/2012 of the Prosecutor’s Office attached to the Tribunal of Bucharest was drafted by Anca Budeanu, employee of the Vulpoi & Toader Management office, which Vulpoi Marcel is part of, the counsellor expert of the accused (according to the electronic of electronic root – Annex 119), and the appointed expert Mandru Gheorghe signed an expertise report which he did not draft personally.
- Against the experts Marcel Vulpoi and Mirela PinteaI filed the complaint of 26.10.2016 (see annex 316). The Commercial Tribunal of Cluj has appointed Mrs. Pintea Mirela Oana as expert in the case no. 3414/1285/2011 and approved the participation of two assistant/adviser experts from the undersigned in the performance of the expertise, namely Vaduva Elena and Radu Violeta, and two assistant/adviser experts from Farmec SA, respectively Vulpoi Marcel and Culda Ioan. The expertise submitted to the court contains only the opinion of the experts Pintea M. and Vulpoi M., without the opinion of the party experts Radu V. and Vaduva E. The opinion of Radu V. and of Vaduva E. could not be formulated due to the lack of documents that the court informed Farmec SA to submit. The tribunal found these irregularities and, as a consequence, gave orders and sanctions to the company and to the expert Pintea, and they failed to meet this, documents that the appointed expert claims to have verified.
In relation to the situation that Pintea Mirela requested an excessive fee of 75,680 lei, a value 25 times higher than the amount of 3,000 lei established by the Tribunal, PREJUDICES me twice, on the one hand, because the Pintea/Vulpoi/Culda expertise did not respond to the objectives set out by the court and specified below in the sense that it does not highlight the payment documents, the payment orders, shareholders’ receipts for the account of shares, did not comply with the legal decisions given in the pending case or in other cases, and on the other hand, they request from me an excessive value that does not reflect the reality.
The magistrate has “randomly” appointed a judicial expert in the file, namely Mirela Pintea, who is the daughter of Dan Pintea – the vicepresident of the Romanian Federation of Locomotive Drivers, affiliated with the Alfa Cartel whose president is Bogdan Hosu. Through the request to ANAF, Bogdan Hossu requested that I would be inspected by the companies where I have an interest and that my shares held at Farmec SA would be frozen, according to the excerpt:
- “.. we consider that if any deeds of tax evasion to prejudice the state by the minority shareholder were observed, it would be required to initiate a procedure of freezing the shares held by this shareholder at SC Farmec SA and of establishing the possibility of buying them by the shareholders of SC Farmec SA from the state”.
Mirela Pintea has signed an expertise with Marcel Vulpoi that did not reflect the actual operations on the subscription of the shares by the shareholders who paid the shares and the payments of the shareholders for the account of shares and requested me the amount of 75,000 lei as a fee. As far as the expertise is concerned, the Prosecutor’s Office of Pitesti ordered the initiation of the criminal prosecution for the deed of false testimony.
It cannot be dissociated the fact that expert Marcel Vulpoi, who holds a leading position in the Body of Expert Accountants, the Department of Ilfov – a friend with Robert Sova – President of the Romanian Body of Expert Accountants
– draws up the expertise through the author Anca Budeanu, his employee (see Annex 119 – excerpt from the electronic root in the criminal case 3164/P/2012 of the Prosecutor’s Office attached to the Tribunal of Bucharest) and then the appointed experts and the party expert Ioan Culda sign them without the expertise presenting the real economic operations, and without the expertise being proven with the accounting documents, the prosecutors and the judges have agreed to accept these pseudo-expertises as evidence;
– enjoys an “above the law” status in the context of the aforementioned considerations as serving the interest of some groups of interests on not emphasising in the expertise or “carefully” emphasising some illicit economic operations in the context where the criminal prosecution began in the subsequent cases, but the investigations have not been completed.
1) in the case Ioan Niculae, the Sursa Zilei publication notes (see Annex 317 newspaper exewspaper excerpt) that “Marcel Vulpoi, Accounting Professor at ASE, CECCAR expert and the owner of the largest company of financial and accounting consultancy in Ilfov, was accused by the DIICOT to favour a group of fraudsters who were supplying false invoices to hundreds of other companies”
“Prosecutors claim that Marcel Vulpoi knew about the” illegal nature of the activities operated by them”, his powerful consultancy company providing services to the 42 companies involved, also in obtaining credits with fake documents and accessing European funds. DIICOT confirmed for Sursa Zilei that another team leader from Vulpoi & Toader Management, Lucian Vutescu, was also accused for the same crimes as his boss
2) In the Romgaz file on Varujan Vosganian and Ioan Niculae, three expert accountants were appointed, including Marcel Vulpoi: “With Marcel Vulpoi placed under serious accusations, the prosecutors who are working on the Romgaz case should also clarify to what extent the expertise requested by them was compromised” (see Annex 317 excerpt from the publication http://www.sursazilei.ro/expertiza-in-cazul-ioan-niculae-blocat%C4%83-dup%C4%83-ce-diicot-l-a-pus-sub-acuzare-pe-expert/
- Against the expert Marilena GhitaI filed the complaint of 26.10.2016 (see Annex 163), where it results from that the expert replaces the court, the Tribunal of Constanta in the case 1514/1285/2012 and intervenes for the opposite party in order to change objective 1, does not inform the court that the reason the non-delivery of the report arises from the fact that the defendant company does not submit the documents necessary to perform the expertise and does not submit to the court as an objective statement made by itself regarding the requests for documents of the party expert required to carry out the expertise.
The Minister of Justice rejected the petitioner’s complaints to the Body of Expert Accountants (see Annex 148 – Communication of the Ministry of Justice to the undersigned).
On 28.02. 2018 I notified the Ministry of Justice and the Body of Expert Accountants (see Annex 163) regarding the non-compliance by the expert Marilena Ghita with the objectives of the expertise and court’s order that was given on 26.01.2018
All these complaints of the undersigned and of the Ministry of Justice were not resolved by the Body of Expert Accountants for years, but the same institution, managed by Robert Sova communicated in just three days an answer to the Court of Appeal of Bucharest in the case 2485/300/2011 following the request of the expert Marcel Vulpoi (see Annex 278 – Marcel Vulpoi’s communication).
13. OFFICIALS OF FARMEC and THEIR “COLLABORATORS”
officials of Farmec between 2007 and 2018 on the occasion of the requests for the return of excise duties for the alcohol purchases under a regime exemption from the excise duties, did not submit the documents stipulated at item 22 par. 34 of the Methodological Norms for the Application of the Fiscal Code, and the customs officials have accepted the conditions imposed by the Farmec officials, which justifies the reasonable suspicion on the existence of GROUPS OF INTERESTS (see Annex 9 – Requests for the return of excise duties).
(2) Mirel Borodi
His origins are in Bistrita, where general Virgil Ardelean also originates from, also known as the “Fox”, former director of the Intelligence Service of the Ministry of Interior and is the owner of the Registrul Miorita SA, to whom the administrators of Farmec SA entrusted the keeping of the register of shareholders, and in violation of the law ensures the “secrecy” of the shareholders’ payments for the account of shares, under the conditions where Farmec SA paid more than 4,5000,000 lei to Net Brinel, Marcel Borodi’s company, a relative of the owner of Registrul Miorița SA, who presented the register of shareholders in the case 1021/1285/2016 following the communication of the Tribunal without the information provided by the law and which was requested by the judge (see Annex 344 – the communication of the Tribunal to the Registrul Miorita and its reply to the Tribunal).
Net Brinel company benefited from a contract concluded with the municipality and county of Cluj-Napoca County and other public authorities, the significant ones being:
- the contract regarding the EXTENSION AND MAINTENANCE OF THE INFORMATION SYSTEM OF THE ELECTORAL REGISTER, in the amount of 6,461,210 Euros, concluded as a result of a tender where the NET BRINEL company was the sole bidder;
- the contract for equipping the courts with IT devices and the contract amounting to 305,000 Euros, with TRANSGAZ, controlled by Emil Boc, the mayor of Cluj-Napoca;
- the contracts with the Bistrita County Council (over 4,000,000 lei VAT included) and the Cluj County Council (over 400,000 lei VAT included),
- the contract with Transgaz SA Medias, in the amount of more than 300,000 Euros. The company of Mr. Borodi, was the only bidder for this contract of Microsoft licenses in an open tender context, without also having an electronic tender. Sergiu Lascu, the brother of the Chief Prosecutor of the National Anticorruption Directorate, Laura Codruta Kovesi, works in this national company
(3) Felix Tataru,
who managed the electoral campaign of the President of Romania, Traian Basescu under the conditions where Farmec transferred over 600,000 lei to the companies Chapter Four Communications and Chapter 4 Communications, companies related to Mr. Felix Tataru.
14. INTELLIGENCE SERVICE OFFICERS
(1) Virgil Ardelean – General, for about 15 years, he had the status of Secretary of State Minister, Manager of the Military Intelligence Service 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 connection with the son of the former director of the military intelligence service unit of the Ministry of Interior, Mr. Virgil Ardelean (see Annex 318 – press article “Puii Vulpii” (Fox’s Cubs) where it is specified that lawyer Virgil Ardelean also known as the Fox protects the “businessmen, prosecturos or Transylvanian officers”. Although he no longer has an official status, Mr. Virgil Ardelean welcomed President Klaus Johannis during his trip to Cluj
(2) Dumbrava Dumitru, Brigadier General, is the Director of the Legal Directorate of the Romanian Intelligence Service, has the same name as Professor Dumbrava Partenie, party expert, collaborator of the officials of Farmec SA and of Mr. Dumbrava Horatiu, member of the Superior Council of Magistracy between 2014 and 2017.
Excerpt from the HotNews article:
“The General of the Romanian Intelligence Service, Mr. Dumitru Dumbrava has conformed, in the SRI Commission, that he knows and collaborated with the prosecutor Alexandra Carmen Lancranjan, but denies to have helped her in her career. The General of the Romanian Intelligence Service, Mr. Dumitru Dumbrava said on Wednesday, at the hearings in the Parliamentary Commission for the Control over the Activity of the SRI that he knows the DNA prosecutor Alexandra Lancranjan and has collaborated with her.”
The General Dumitru Dumbrava concluded a report on 26.02.2015 (see Annex 354 – Several communications of the SRI), on behalf of the Romanian Intelligence Service and National Security, through which the general expressed reasonable suspicions that an executor from Oradea has fulfilled a document (related to the job duties) by which he adjudicated a real estate in the value area 1 (central) of Oradea in favour of a 2nd degree relative.
I do not know who has the right in this case, but understanding that it is a national security case, the Romanian Intelligence Service intervened through this document to the competent institution.
I legitimately wonder whether the Romanian Intelligence Service and the General Mitica Dumbrava have intervened similarly, with the same measure, in the case of the undersigned’s notifications since 2014, 26.05.2015, 2016 and 17.10.2017 to the Romanian Intelligence Service regarding:
– Prosecutor A.C. Lancranjan who knew that from the case 3164 of the Prosecutor’s Office attached to the Tribunal of Bucharest, thousands of pieces of evidence have disappeared from the case file and yet she ordered the solution of classification for the deed of evasion
– Even the note of rendering in the criminal case 92/P/2012 that emphasises the influence of judges at the Tribunal of Satu Mare in the case 7386/1285/2010 and the payment of co-interest “incentives” for the public officials to do everything in the favour of the individuals Turdean and Pantea.
(3) Simion CECCAN, Colonel of the Romanian Intelligence Service, who in 2013 was transferred from the SRI Division of Targu Mures to that of Cluj, where the headquarter of SC Farmec SA is, a company that benefited from the Department for Monitoring the Excise Duties and Customs Operations of Cluj of the return of excise duties with a significant value for the state budget between 2007 and 2018 without submitting the mandatory documents stipulated in item 22 par. 34 of the Methodological Norms for the Application of the Fiscal Code. In 2013, I sent to him, via mail, a box of documents on defrauding the state and Farmec company. The documents were not picked up from the mail (see Annex 319 – postal document).
(4) Razvan Dociu – Lieutenant colonel (r) in the Romanian Intelligence Service
in the period when he served as officer with the military rank of lieutenant colonel within the Romanian Intelligence Service and was detached from the Central Structure to the Prahova Division of the Romanian Intelligence Service, he carried out activities that also included the “supervision” of the privatisation of the state owned companies DERO SA, ROVIT SA, GFR, Vinalcool Valea Calugareasca SA.
Following the privatisation, all the aforementioned companies, with the registered office in Prahova County, have entered into the patrimony of some legal entities and individuals, respectively the DERO SA factory became the property of
Unilever Limited Europe, Vinalcol Valea Calugareasca, was taken over by British investors, the new name being Cramele Halewood, the Romanian Railway Group (GFR), the most valuable company in the GRAMPET SA group of companies is owned by Gruia Stoica, the former I.A.S. Valea Calugareasca became SC ROVIT SA.
Along with the transfer of Dero SA to the patrimony of Unilever Group, the following were included in the “package” (a) the company Aquila Part Prod Com, for the distribution of Unilever’s non-food and food products, such as Knorr, Rama, etc. and (b) Alexandru Suciu, Commercial Manager related to the sale of Unilever products. Later, Alexandru Suciu was helped to become Commercial Manager in the Unilever Group’s organisational chart, an occasion to watch over the business between Aquila Part Prod Com and the Unilever Group companies.
The shareholders of Aquila Part Prod Com are Catalin Vasile and Alin Dociu, whose father is Razvan Dociu, Lieutenant Colonel at the Romanian Intelligence Service, who has been empowered and delegated by the Romanian Intelligence Service to watch over the privatisation of DERO SA and to transfer its property to Unilever Group in Romania and in the region.
At the time of transferring DERO SA from Prahova County into the patrimony of Unilever, the plaintiff company Galic Prod had already been under contract with Dero SA for a few years and was selling detergent in an amount of about 10,000 tons per year.
The company Aquila Part Prod Com received a “gift” of exclusivity from Unilever for the logistic transport to Romania and to the countries in the area and the distribution of the Unilever products, a few additional percentages compared to the company Galic which has carried out the same services and at the same time/simultaneously, the exclusion of the plaintiff Galic Produc and of other companies from the contract with Unilever, Unilever failing to comply with the Competition Law and with the contract that had been concluded between Unilever, Galic Prod and other distributors.
The complaint of the plaintiff Galic Prod SRL to the Competition Council (see Annex 3) was not investigated by the Competition Council, which refused to relate the plaintiff’s complaint to the investigation with the same goal that was initiated in the case of Unilever, and later the president Bogdan Marius Chiritoiu replaced the rapporteur Dragos Popescu, ignoring the content of the Note drafted by the rapporteur on the indications regarding a possible violation of Art. 5 of the law by SC UNILEVER SOUTH CENTRAL EUROPE SRL and by the clients and competitors of this company, after which it closed the investigation in the case of Unilever, without the consent of the plenum of the Competition Council.
However, as a result of anti-competitive practices and agreements of Colgate Palmolive Romania, Kraft Foods and Unilever South Central Europe, practices prohibited by the Competition Law no. 21/1996, the aforementioned contracts have ceased, with the consequence that Prestige and Galic have registered huge financial losses, under the conditions where their exclusion from these contracts was the result of anticompetitive agreements, with the result of favouring certain economic agents and the depreciating the competition. The contracts between Prestige and Orkla Foods and GlaxoSmithKline, Carrefour Romania, Billa Romania, Kaufland Romania and the contracts between Unilver South Central Europe, Galic and its partners (…) were carried out following a similar “pattern”.
(5) Marian Stefanescu – officer of the Romanian Intelligence Service, UM 0472, as General Manager of the Directorate for Integrity of ANAF, has violated the provisions of the law stipulated in Art. 45 par. 2 of Law 188/1999 because he failed to fulfil the provisions of the ANAF President which were given on the occasion of the undersigned’s petition on 14.02.2018 (see Annex 27), as well as the provisions of Art. 291 par. 1 Code of Criminal Procedure, because he did not request all the evidence from the General Customs Directorate concerning Farmec’s requests for the return of excise duties, fiscal control reports and the decisions for the return since 2007-2018, did not request the quantification of the amount of the prejudice within the Tax Control Directorate of DGAMC and did not notify the DNA with all the evidence.
Marian Stefanescu, as coordinator of the DGI, rejected also the undersigned’s request of 12.12.2017 by which I requested the replacement of Inspector Georgeta Craciun, because she was delaying the completion of the internal investigation, did not seek for the individuals of the directorates to provide the documents that had been requested initially, through communications, and to call for hearing the individuals who have been summoned and refused to come, circumstances that favoured the continuation of the frauds and the intervention of the prescription regarding the recovery of prejudices.
(6) Daniel Diaconescu– officer of the Romanian Intelligence Service, was appointed by delegation in the position of Deputy Director of the Directorate for Integrity of ANAF, although he has the procedural quality of suspect in the criminal case regarding the Euroavipo/Murfatlar business, instrumented by the National Anticorruption Directorate, and Euroavipo was the main refined alcohol supplier of Farmec, to which it delivered a quantity of 1,500,000 litres of 96.5% refined alcohol that was undistorted. 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.
(7) Adrian Dinu – officer in the Romanian Intelligence Information Serviceby delegation to the Directorate for Integrity of ANAF, had the quality of counsellor of the inspectorate for integrity, the internal investigation report does not contain the evidence from the DGV, it does not contain precise information, does not contain the value of the prejudice of ANAF, did not request a fiscal control. Please also read about the Directorate for Integrity of ANAF (Chapter V, item 2.6.).
(8) Dan Valentin Capsuna – General within the Romanian Intelligence Service, recently placed in reserve, knows the organisation chart of the public servants in the Romanian institutions (prosecutor’s offices, courts, etc., which have the role of “being covered” and answer to those individuals who know and can access their services.
Constantin Udrea, military judge with a magistrate rank of the colonel at the Military Court of Appeal of Bucharest, on 27.09.2018 specified about blackmailing the judicial bodies in an interview written by George Tarata:
“As for the secret protocols concluded with the judicial bodies, they represent a great drama of the Romanian people. I would have never believed that I would live the moment when an intelligence service would steer and coordinate the activity, in an obviously obscure manner, meaning secretly, the activity of the judicial bodies. I never thought I would live these times, and I hope young individuals understand the dangers this country and the rule of law are exposed to if an intelligence service leads the judiciary activity. It’s an alarm signal that I want us to pull together. It’s dramatic what’s going on.
Beyond the fact that they (n.r. – the protocols) contain provisions against the law, they add to the law, they are given based on some CSAT decisions signed also by individuals who are not part of the CSAT. In other words, which have not seen those decisions of CSAT. Since the President of the High Court or the President of the Superior Council of Magistracy did not see what the decision of CSAT is with two zeros, that is, strictly secret, but based on it, that protocol is signed, since you do not know what that decision contains, why has the protocol been signed? This means it was sneaked and forcefully signed, or you have been put in the position to sign it, or you joined it without wanting to know what there is. These are matters in relation to which I hope the civil society shall follow and find out what lies beneath.
Do you know how they acted? They acted systematically, went not only through protocols, they changed the legislation, the intelligence service bodies gave them judicial duties, they gave them the most important competence in a criminal trial, namely that of providing an evidence. The most important evidence is the interception, the localisation via GPS systems. These matters, as long as they are provided by a secret service without assuming its responsibility, without providing the original monitoring support to be technically verified, this means that it (n.r. – the secret service) leads the criminal trial, it knows what solution shall be reached, it can blackmail the judiciary body, be it a judge or a prosecutor as it has them under its thumb. Slowly, slowly they invaded the Justice, especially the criminal one. This is the drama of this country. You shall find in the Code of Criminal Procedure phrases taken from the information collection manual”.
Chapter V Chapter VII
 Art. 22 par. 34 of the Methodological Norms for the Application of the Fiscal Code: (34) In order to return the excise duties, the users shall submit to the territorial fiscal authority the request for the exemption of excise duties, accompanied by: c) the proof of the quantity used for the purpose which the exemption is granted for, consisting in a centralising statement of the quantities actually used and the related documents.”
 Law 188/199 – Art. 45 (2) The civil servant is bound to comply with the orders received from the hierarchical superiors.
 Law 188/199 – Art. 45 (2) The public servant is bound to comply with the orders received from the hierarchical superiors.
 Art. 76 of Law 303/2004: In the exercise of his or her duties, the Prosecutor General of the Prosecutor’s Office attached to the High Court of Cassation and Justice issues internal orders.
 Art. 303 par. 1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure: Orders given by the Prosecutor
(1) The prosecutor may order on the performance of any criminal prosecution action by the criminal investigation bodies of the judicial police or by the special criminal investigation bodies, as the case may be.”
 Art. 5 – Finding the truth
(1) The judicial bodies undertake to ensure, based on evidence, finding of the truth about the deeds and circumstances of the case, as well as regarding the suspect or the defendant.
(2) The criminal prosecution bodies commit to collect and administer evidence both in favour and against the suspect or the defendant. Rejecting or not noting in bad faith the evidence proposed in favour of the suspect or defendant shall be sanctioned in accordance with the provisions of this Code.
 Art. 326 criminal code – Forgery in statements
The statement not corresponding to the truth, done by an individual of those specified in Art. 175 or to an establishment where he/she carries out his/her activity in order to create a legal consequence, for oneself or another, when, according to the law or circumstances, the statement made serves for causing that consequence, is punished by imprisonment from 3 months to 2 years or by fine.
 Art. 216 – (1) The shares issued for the increase of the share capital shall be offered for subscription, primarily to the existing shareholders, proportionally to the number of shares they own
Art. 217 – (1) The right of preference of the shareholders may be limited or withdrawn only by the decision of the extraordinary general meeting of shareholders.
 The Second Council Directive: The right of pre-emption may not be restricted or withdrawn by the statutes or instrument of incorporation. However, the general meeting may decide on this. The administration or management body must submit to this meeting a written report reasoning the limitation or withdrawal of the right of pre-emption and justifying the proposed price of issuance The General Assembly decides in compliance with the rules on the quorum and majority laid down in Article 44. The Assembly’s decision shall be published in the form provided for by the legislation of each Member State in accordance with Article 3 of Directive 2009/101/EC.
 Art. 57 par. 6 of Law 303/2004: “the judges may be delegated for a period not exceeding 6 months and may be extended by their written consent for another 6 months at the most”
 The Second Council Directive prohibits by Art. 33 Par. 4. the limitation according to the excerpt: “The right of pre-emption may not be restricted or withdrawn by the statutes or instrument of incorporation…..”
 Art. 177 of Law 31/1990:(1) 177 of Law 31/1990: (1) Besides the records provided by the law, the joint stock companies must keep: a) a register of shareholders showing, as the case may be, the first and last names, the personal identification number, the name, residence or registered office of the shareholders with nominative shares, as well as the payments made into the account of shares
 Art. 187*) Code of Civil Procedure – Violation of the obligations related to the course of the trial. Sanctions
(1) Unless the law provides otherwise, according to the provisions of this Article, the court may penalise the following deeds committed in relation to the trial, as follows:
- with a judicial fine from 100 lei to 1,000 lei:
- e) its author’s complaint in bad faith against the typing or signature of a document or against the authenticity of an audio or video recording;
 Art. 17 Par. (3) of Law 21/1996 valid between 2009 and 29.12.2015 “The president, vice-presidents and competition advisors must have a real independence and enjoy a high professional reputation and civic probity. In order to be appointed as member of the Competition Council, one is required to have high education, high professional competence, good reputation and a minimum of 10 years of service in activities in these domains: economics, commercial, prices and competition or legal”.
Art. 15 par. 1) item g) of Law 21/1996 valid as of 29.12.2015 until now: “(4) To be appointed as member of the Competition Council, an individual must meet the following criteria: g) to have minimum 10 years of service in activities of the economic or legal fields;”
 According to Art. 133, par. (6) of the Competition Law valid after 29.12.2015 until now:”The quality of being a Competition Council member is not compatible with exercising any other professional or consultancy activity, by direct participation or by interposed people to leading or managing certain public or private entities or by holding positions or public dignities, except for didactic positions and activities in the higher education, scientific research and literary-artistic creation. They cannot be designated experts or arbitrators by parties or court of law or by any other institution”.
According to Art. 17 par. (5) of the Competition Law valid since 2009 until 29.12.2015:
“The quality of being a Competition Council member is not compatible with exercising any other professional or consultancy activity, by direct participation or by interposed people in leading or managing positions of certain public or private entities or with holding positions or public offices, except for didactic positions and activities in the higher education, scientific research and literary-artistic creation. They cannot be appointed as experts or arbitrators nor by parties or the court of law or by any other institution”.