increase font sizedecrease font size | | 

Direcția Națională Anticorupție

MINISTERUL PUBLIC

PARCHETUL

DE PE LÂNGĂ

ÎNALTA CURTE DE CASAȚIE ȘI JUSTIȚIE

 
IMPARȚIALITATE·INTEGRITATE·EFICIENȚĂ

December, 10th, 2015
No. 1938/VIII/3

Press Release


The prosecutors within the National Anticorruption Directorate – the Territorial service Brasov have ordered the start of the criminal investigation and the pretrial detention for 24 hours, starting with December the 9th and December the 10th 2015, against the following defendants:

TRUICĂ REMUS, acting as a businessman at the time the acts were committed and presently, charged for the following offences:
- forming an organized criminal group,
- traffic of influence
- money laundering
- complicity to abuse of office if the public official received an undue benefit for himself or other with aggravated consequences
- giving bribe,

ROȘU ROBERT MIHĂIȚĂ, a partner lawyer within an attorney’s of law office, charged for the following offences:
- forming an organized criminal group,
- traffic of influence
- complicity to money laundering
- complicity to abuse of office if the public official received an undue benefit for himself or other with aggravated consequences

ANDRONIC DAN CĂTĂLIN, political consultant, journalist, charged for the following offences:
- forming an organized criminal group, in the form of joining it;
- complicity to traffic of influence,

MARCOVICI MARIUS ANDREI, administrator of a trade company, councilor, charged for the following offences:
- forming an organized criminal group,
- complicity to traffic of influence,
- money laundering.

MATEESCU LUCIAN CLAUDIU, charged for the following offences:
- forming an organized criminal group, in the form of joining it;
- complicity to traffic of influence.

The prosecutor’s order for pretrial detention and arrest indicated that presently there data and clues describing the following state of facts:
Starting with November 2006, the defendant Truică Remus, Roșu Robert Mihăiță and other people formed an organized criminal group aiming to gain the properties illegally claimed by an interested person, by providing goods to the people within the authorities/institutions that owned these properties, instigating and complicity to the perpetration, by these people, of the offence of abuse of office, by providing and signing the necessary documents and trafficking their real influence upon the public officials.
The defendants Andronic Dan, Marcovici Marius Andrei and Mateescu Lucian joined the criminal group, the first two in 2007, the last one in 2011.
Since its establishment, the group members have permanently been involved in criminal activities and have informed each other, directly or indirectly, on the development and achievement of their interest pursued through their actions, by agreeing on the strategy forward and finding together the most economic solutions for the group. Also, group members kept in permanent contact with the person buying the influence, giving him each time assurances on the success of the criminal approach.
The defendant Truică Remus had a critical role within the group, meaning that his reputation and its allegations were decisive in convincing stakeholders interested in buying influence. On the other hand, the defendant Truică Remus introduced the "business" to the other group members, deciding together with them to get involved in the criminal approach, the only way to obtain the goods that the person concerned unlawfully claimed. He also acted as an agent of a company in the documents drawn up together with the buyer influence, repeatedly met with him in order to discuss the status of undertaken actions, negotiated with them in the interest of the group, discussed with the defendant Roșu Robert, lawyer, for the preparation of documents necessary to create the appearance of legality, presented himself before the authorities on behalf of the buyer of influence, discussed with notaries and lawyers for the preparation of documents necessary for the claims, trafficked the influence for real and corrupted public officials for the intended purpose.
Within this context, starting with 2006, he promised the buyer of influence that he could be able to recover the unlawfully claimed properties, claiming that he has connections in politics and justice at their highest level (councilor to the prime minister, the services of top law firms, whose influence could even reach the High Court of Cassation and Justice), in exchange for which he demanded a considerable part of the properties for himself and the members of the group, between 50-80% of each property expected to be obtained.
In achieving the purpose of the group, the defendant Truică Remus, together with other members of the group and buyer of influence, later concealed the unlawful nature of the criminal group. Thus, on November the 1st, 2006, they drafted an assignment contract regarding the properties under administrative or judicial property restitution procedures. The contract was concluded between the buyer of influence and a company represented by Truică Remus. Specifically, the contract drawn up by the defendant Roșu Robert provided that the person buying the influence, acting as an assignor, forwarded / assigned without reservation all of its present and future rights upon the immovable goods, as listed and identified in the contract (among them being "Baneasa farm", plot of land with an area of ​​28.63 hectares). The company represented by Truică Remus undertook to pay, under certain conditions, an amount of money and to provide support and assistance in relation to goods found under administrative or judicial refund proceedings. Subsequently, as a result of this act, the defendant Truică Remus signed other documents / contracts which aimed to conceal the origin of the restituted goods. The Baneasa farm was one of the goods claimed by the buyer of influence, for which a notification was submitted in 2002, left without an answer up to the moment when the "business" was taken over by this criminal group.

In 2008, following the aforementioned notification related to the Royal Farm Baneasa submitted, submitted for settlement to the Institute for Research and Development for Plant Protection Bucharest, the defendant Truică Remus acted in a way that, through people, he was able to persuade the Institute's board members to unlawfully approve the influence buyer's request. Subsequently, by decision no. 30 of September the 26th, 2008, by breaching the provisions of the Law no.10/2001, the restitution of the Royal Farm Baneasa was ordered, an agreement of delivery- takeover being concluded in the same day. The restitution decision was an abusive one, as the request was not accompanied by supporting documents proving the capacity of justified heir or the scope of the Law 10/2001 related to the location of the land, and this was not identified by law.

The value of the damage caused to the Romanian State as result of this criminal activity amounted to 135,874,800 Euro (the equivalent of 500,399,713 Lei). The same amount also represented an undue benefit for the buyer of influence, Truică Remus and his associates within the criminal group.

In order to obtain this property, Truică Remus convinced the director of the institute to support this claim, although the submitted documentation was incomplete, the expertise was formally performed, and in exchange for this he provided him with undue benefits consisting in the payment of a trip abroad for four people.

The defendants TRUICĂ REMUS, ROȘU ROBERT MIHĂIȚĂ, ANDRONIC DAN CĂTĂLIN, MARCOVICI MARIUS ANDREI and MATEESCU LUCIAN CLAUDIU were informed about their legal status in accordance with the provisions of art. 309 of the Criminal Procedure Code. On December the 10th 2015, they will be brought for trial to the Appeal Court Brașov, with a proposal of pretrial detention for 30 days.

Criminal investigation acts regarding other people are in progress.

The prosecutors benefit of the specialized support of the Romanian Intelligence Service.

It should be mentioned that the start of the criminal action represents a stage of a criminal trial regulated by the Criminal Procedure Code, a situation which cannot, under any circumstances, infringe the principle of presumption of innocence.


THE INFORMATION AND PUBLIC RELATIONS OFFICE