IMPARȚIALITATE·INTEGRITATE·EFICIENȚĂ
September, 24th, 2015
No. 1504/VIII/3
Press release
The prosecutors of the National Anticorruption Directorate – the Territorial Service Ploiești have ordered the start of the criminal investigation and the pretrial detention for 24 hours – starting with September 24th 2015 – of the following defendants:
SEMENESCU OVIDIU TRAIAN, who was – at the time the offences were committed – the administrator of a commercial company and unofficial representative of a group of foreign companies including SC APA Nova SA and who was charged with the following offences:
- traffic of influence (2 offences),
- buying of influence (2 offences),
MOISESCU VLAD OCTAVIAN (who is under judicial control in another case) and BEREVOIANU COSTIN, personal councilor of the Mayor of Bucharest during 2008 - 2015, both of them being charged with traffic of influence.
The prosecutors’ ordinances revealed that there are data and evidence according to which:
During 2008-2015, the defendants Semenescu Ovidiu-Traian, Moisescu Vlad-Octavian and Berevoianu Costin used their influence on the representatives of several public institutions from Romania (mainly the City Hall and the General Council of Bucharest, the Mayor’s Office and the Local Council of Sector 1 Bucharest). They did it for the benefit of several economic agents who are part of a group of foreign companies. In exchange, they received significant sums of money from the representatives of these companies. The payments were concealed in the form of some contracts concluded with companies owned or controlled by the above mentioned people. In reality, the object of these contracts has never been executed.
Concretely, during that interval of time, the defendant Semenescu Ovidiu-Traian, using the preferential relationship he had with the defendant Moisescu Vlad-Octavian and also the latter’s connections within the City Hall and the Local Council of Sector 1 Bucharest, he facilitated the specific activity conducted by the companies he was representing in Sector 1 Bucharest (for instance: the signing of contracts with the public institutions, getting approvals, favorable council decisions or avoiding the adoption of unfavorable measures).
During that time, as a result of this understanding, the defendant Moisescu Vlad Octavian facilitated the issuance of some council decisions and the signing of more than 11 addenda, by making sure that some of the councilors from the General Council would vote for them. The addenda in question referred to increased fees, the completion and operation of Glina wastewater treatment plant financed from European funds, transferring immovable assets into the property of SC APA Nova SA, rehabilitation and modernization of the water fountains from Bucharest, etc.
For instance, during January – April 2011, the defendant Moisescu Vlad Octavian made sure that an addendum to a concession agreement would be approved. The concession agreement in question had been signed by SC APA Nova Bucharest SA with the City Hall Bucharest, its purpose being to obtain a major increase in the charges for water supply and sewage services. The approval of this addendum in favor of the Bucharest operator resulted in a significant increase in its revenue/profit from the net turnover of 493,644,646 lei, net profit – 85,732,079 lei in 2011, to the net turnover of 666,912,331 lei and net profit of - 118,135,449 lei in 2012.
In the same context, the defendant Berevoianu Costin, in his capacity as councilor of the Mayor of Bucharest supported the interests of the group of companies unofficially represented by the defendant Semenescu Ovidiu-Traian. Practically, in his capacity as councilor of the Mayor, he coordinated the communal water supply and sewage services, services in which the company SC APA Nova SA was also involved.
In exchange for their influence, the defendants Moisescu Vlad-Octavian and Berevoianu Costin received from the group of companies unofficially represented by the defendant Semenescu Ovidiu Traian, different sums of money, under the guise of some contracts (e.g. consultancy contracts) which had been concluded formally, without executing their object, in fact.
Regarding the defendant Moisescu Vlad-Octavian the fictive character of the contracts is also shown by the fact that:
- some of the payments were made before the signing of the contract,
- some contracts were signed by people with no capacity within the company,
- payments were made a day after the signing of the contract or without existing such a document,
- there were contracts signed after the payment was made.
On the other hand, in exchange of using his influence for the interests of the group of companies he was unofficially representing, the defendant Semenescu Ovidiu Traian cashed in different amounts of money using three direct ways of payment:
- concluding several consultancy contracts - concluding several contracts regarding activities for promoting the image in sports,
- concluding advertising contracts through a company acquired by the defendant especially for creating another way of draining money from SC APA Nova SA and from the other companies of the group, under the guise of promotion activities.
As a clear example, we mention that payments were made to the companies controlled by the defendant Traian Ovidiu Semenescu every time the General Council of Bucharest approved an addendum to the concession agreements, increasing the charges.
The defendnats Semenescu Ovidiu Traian, Moisescu Vlad Octavian and Berevoianu Costin were informed about their legal status according to the provisions of article 309 of the Criminal Procedure Code and on September 25th 2015, he will be brought in front of the Prahova Tribunal with the proposal of pretrial detention for 30 days.
In the investigation of this case the prosecutors have benefited from the support of the Romanian Intelligence Service.
It should be mentioned that the start of the criminal action represents a stage of the criminal proceedings regulated by the Criminal Procedure Code, carried out in order to create the procedural framework for gathering of evidence, an activity which cannot, under any circumstances, infringe the principle of presumption of innocence.
THE INFORMATION AND PUBLIC RELATIONS OFFICE