The scandalous audit of professional ethics and integrity (vetting) of the Prosecutor General Alexandru Macidona raised the question in society about how consistent the decisions of the vetting commission are. NM studied similar cases of “parental inheritance and gifts” to prosecutors and tells what decisions the commission made on them.
Successfully passed verification
In May, the new Prosecutor General successfully passed the audit, despite the ambiguous situation with the source of money for buying an apartment. According to Macidon, after the death of his parents, he and his sister found €75 thousand in the cellar of their parents’ house, which they divided among themselves.
The commission checked the parents’ income and agreed that they could have accumulated an amount that would at least cover the cost of the prosecutor’s apartment. They took into account the official income of the mother, who worked at the school, the income of the family store-bar in the village, supported by “black accounting,” and the income of the father, who worked in Israel for nine years and transferred money home.
The prosecutor of the Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office, Mikhail Ivanov, had a similar situation. He indicated that he received money from his parents to pay off the payment for the purchase of an apartment and to organize a wedding – just over €18 thousand. However, the commission considered that the official income of the parents was not enough for such savings, given their consumption expenses.
Ivanov explained that his parents had unofficial income accumulated over many years. His father worked in the construction industry, simultaneously receiving informal income from preparing estimates. The mother also had unofficial income. The commission found these arguments to be fair.
It is also important to note that the commission analyzed the difference between the income and expenses of the prosecutor’s family. She found that even if the parents’ money was not taken into account, the negative balance of the family remained below the legal threshold of 234 thousand lei, which allowed the commission to recognize the prosecutor as meeting the criteria of financial integrity.
Failed verification
The case of prosecutor Victor Kozacu is similar to the previous two, but the commission considered that he did not meet the integrity criteria. According to the report, in 2019 the prosecutor bought an apartment with an area of 75 square meters. m for an amount equal to the cadastral value of housing (402 thousand lei). During the inspection, he explained that he covered part of this money with a short-term cash loan from his parents (€23 thousand). He indicated his father’s many years of unofficial work in Russia as the source of these funds.
To confirm his father’s income, Kazaku provided statements from his parent, his work colleagues, and even his Russian employer. However, the commission, which had believed prosecutors’ arguments in two previous cases, suddenly tightened the standard of proof in the Cazacu case. The commission categorically refused to acknowledge the fact of savings, citing the lack of bank statements, transfers and tax documents.
Another prosecutor, Andrei Balan, also indicated that he received €20 thousand from his parents in 2010. The prosecutor claimed that this was money from the sale of an apartment for 273 thousand lei, but the commission considered that the parents’ income was not enough for such savings, given their living expenses. The commission found that the prosecutor’s family’s resources did not cover their actual expenses. As a result, the prosecutor significantly exceeded the limit.
It is noteworthy that the commission checked the prosecutor twice. For the first time, the Supreme Council of Prosecutors (SCP) rejected the commission’s report and sent it for review. Despite the fact that the commission did not change its decision the second time, the SCJ decided to reject the second report and recognize that Balan meets the financial integrity criteria. In his case, SCJ member Sergiu Caraman even prepared a dissenting opinion, in which he criticized the decision of his colleagues and the arguments of the prosecutor.
VSP almost always sides with prosecutors
The situation with Balan aroused criticism, since the Supreme Court twice rejected the report of the vetting commission, which stated that the prosecutor did not meet the criteria of financial integrity. It is worth noting that, according to the law on vetting, the Supreme Court can indeed reject the commission’s report a second time and make its own decision.
At the same meeting, on May 26, the SCJ considered the results of a re-inspection of another prosecutor, Vasile Plevan. The commission twice recommended recognizing Plevan as having failed vetting, but the SCJ has not yet made a final decision on the re-report. On May 26, the council extended the hearing for another 30 days, citing the need to hear two witnesses.
The problem here is that the law does not provide for the SCJ to postpone the decision on the re-report of the vetting commission for another 30 days. Once the re-evaluation report has been received by the Superior Council of Prosecutors, the council has a statutory 30-day period to complete the process.
If you analyze the decisions of the Supreme Court regarding the results of inspections of the vetting commission, you will notice that in cases where the commission finds non-compliance with the criteria of financial or professional integrity, the Supreme Court almost always gives prosecutors a second chance and requires a repeat inspection. Such actions by the VSP, according to critics of such decisions of the council, make the conclusions of the vetting commission largely a formality.
UPDATED
After the publication of this publication, Vasile Plevan contacted the editors of NM. In his response, he argues that the law allows for the extension of the administrative procedure, and rejects the assertion that the Superior Council of Prosecutors (SCP) did not have the opportunity to postpone for another 30 days the decision on the re-report of the assessment commission.
An analysis of SCJ decisions shows that in several cases where the assessment commission recommended that prosecutors not be allowed to undergo vetting, the Council referred their cases for re-assessment. At the same time, prosecutor Vasile Plevan rejects the interpretation that the SCJ in most cases takes the side of prosecutors: “The problem that should be raised is the unequal approach of the evaluation commission to the subjects of inspection, and not why the SCJ corrects these shortcomings in the work of the commission.”
In addition, in a comment to NM, Plevan clarified that in his case, the assessment commission “did not reveal any financial violations, even minor ones.” “The only alleged violation identified by the assessment panel was its disagreement with the assessment of evidence in reaching a decision in a criminal case. Moreover, it was I who, after the emergence of new evidence that did not exist at the time the decision was made, investigated these facts and sent the case with an indictment to the court, and the accused was sentenced to 17 years in prison,” said Vasile Plevan in his response.
* Note. The original version of the article was updated on 08.06
***
Vetting in Moldova began as part of justice reform. The first vetting commission or Pre-vetting checked candidates for self-government bodies – the Supreme Council of Magistrates (SCM) and the Supreme Council of Prosecutors (SCP). Her work began in the summer of 2022. Later, two more commissions were formed to check judges and prosecutors. Commission No. 2, responsible for checking judges, began work in July 2023. Its task is to check judges of the Chambers of Appeal, judges and candidates for the Supreme Court of Justice, as well as chairmen and vice-chairmen of courts. Commission No. 3, dealing with prosecutors, began work in December 2023. She must check the prosecutors of specialized prosecutor’s offices, the leadership of the General Prosecutor’s Office, as well as the heads of territorial prosecutor’s offices and their deputies.
Each commission consists of three Moldovan lawyers (two are appointed from the ruling majority, one from the opposition). The commissions also include three international experts recommended by external partners. The original deadline for completing vetting has been moved from December 31, 2025 to December 31, 2026. But even after this, the commissions will continue to work until the completion of the consideration by the Supreme Court of Justice of all complaints from judges and prosecutors who do not agree with the decision of the vetting commissions.
Subscribe to our Telegram channel @newsmakerlive. Everything that is important to know right now about Moldova and the region quickly appears there.
Want to support what we do?
You can contribute to quality journalism by supporting us one-time through the E-commerce system from maib bank or by taking out a monthly subscription to Patreon! This way you will become part of changing Moldova for the better. Thanks to your support, we will be able to implement even more new and important projects and remain independent. No matter how you support us, you will receive a small gift. Follow the link to become our partner. It’s not difficult and even pleasant.
