The second case in which the Section for the Investigation of Crimes in the Justice System (SIIJ) has initiated the criminal investigation of former National Anticorruption Directorate (DNA) chief prosecutor Laura Kovesi (pictured) has all the makings of a media storm. SIIJ published its accusations against Laura Kovesi on Friday, March 8th 2019, through a press release posted on the website of PICCJ (the Prosecutor’s Office attached to the High Court of Cassation and Justice) which, unlike other cases, fails to mention Kovesi’s name. This is possibly a new censorship attempt from Augustin Lazar, since he is the one who approves the press releases of the Public Ministry.

The information provided by the SIIJ is truly groundbreaking. Laura Kovesi has been placed under criminal investigation for reasons of allegedly coordinating an organized crime group, initiated by prosecutors Mircea Negulescu and Lucian Onea from DNA Ploiesti. Kovesi is also charged with accessory to unjust repression, for aiding in the approval of an ‘execution’, without any evidence.

This last accusation refers to the former chief prosecutor of the Prosecutor’s Office attached to the Ploiesti Court of Appeal, Liviu Tudose. In this case, Laura Kovesi ignored her deputies, Calin Nistor and Marius Iacob, and compelled the head of DNA Section I, Gheorghe Popovici, to confirm the indictment to prosecute Tudose, Sebastian Ghita and other individuals, without any evidence against them, as proven by the acquittal rendered by the High Court of Cassation and Justice (ICCJ). What is interesting to observe is that the accusation against Kovesi is supported by the very reports drafted by four leading prosecutors of the DNA, confirming that the indictment used to prosecute Tudose was unlawful and unjustified. From the information at our disposal, the four prosecutors in question are Calin Nistor, Marius Iacob, Gheorghe Popovici and Danut Volintiru (deputy prosecutor of DNA Section I, who refused to confirm Tudose’s indictment), who provided statements to the SIIJ on this matter as well.

Another two accusations against Kovesi are particularly serious. One of these refers to her allowing witnesses to provide statements in dual capacities within the same investigations of the DNA, meaning the use of the same individual as a witness with concealed identity as well as with his or her actual identity. To this effect, SIIJ obtained a circular letter in which Laura Kovesi approved of such practices. It is interesting to see that numerous witness replications were encountered in cases against Sebastian Ghita, same as above. Consequently, one could deduce that Laura Kovesi had developed a fixation with ‘executing’ Ghita.

Lastly, another accusation against suspect Kovesi refers to issuing an order to adopt unitary practices for administering audio/video evidence by the DNA, which allegedly breached the provisions of art. 143 paragraphs 2 and 4 of the Criminal Procedure Code, since the order instructed only media containing conversations relevant to the case to be sent to the courts of law.

Here are the charges brought by SIIJ against Laura Kovesi:

”The Information and Public Relations Department of the Prosecutor’s Office attached to the High Court of Cassation and Justice is authorized to bring the following information to the general public’s attention:

The prosecutors of the Section for the Investigation of Crimes in the Justice System have decided to pursue the criminal investigation of a former chief prosecutor of the National Anticorruption Directorate, for the crimes of establishing an organized crime group, specifically of coordinating it, as provisioned by art. 367 paragraphs 1 and 3 of the Criminal Code and of accessory to unjust repression, specifically of aiding and abetting, as provisioned by art. 52 paragraph 3 of the Criminal Code, in reference to art. 48 paragraph 1 of the Criminal Code, related to art. 283 paragraph 1 of the Criminal Code (five crimes — 5 aggrieved parties).

On March 7th 2019, the suspect was informed that the criminal investigation shall be furthered.

The deeds under investigation consist of coordinating, during the term in office as chief prosecutor within the National Anticorruption Directorate, between 2015 and 2016, through the course of activity, by way of issued orders and instructions, an organized crime group initiated by two prosecutors and one judiciary police officer, to which another three prosecutors and one judiciary police officer later adhered. Allegedly, these individuals acted concertedly in order to commit the crimes of abusive prosecution, unjust repression, influencing statements, misleading judiciary bodies, document forgery and use of forgery.

The orders and instructions referred to consist of a circular letter in which the chief prosecutor allowed the possibility of hearing the same individual, during a criminal investigation, as a witness with concealed identity as well as a witness with actual identity; additionally, said instructions include an order regarding the adoption of uniform practices in the process of administering audio/video evidence in the National Anticorruption Directorate, which allegedly breached the provisions of art. 143 paragraphs 2 and 4 of the Criminal  Procedure Code, since the order instructed sending only the media containing the conversations relevant to the case to the courts of law;

At the same time, through the conduct of the hierarchically superior prosecutor in question, by way of the decisions rendered to the effect of referring a case to the court of law while ignoring the reports of leading prosecutors of the National Anticorruption Directorate – Central Unit, the investigated party allegedly determined a section chief prosecutor to confirm an unlawful and unjustified indictment, in the absence of guilt, and to consequently prosecute five individuals, regarding whom four other prosecutors had previously stated, in writing, that prosecution was not necessary.

We hereby state that the continuation of the criminal investigation constitutes a phase of the criminal proceedings, as regulated by the Criminal Procedure Code, with the purpose of creating the procedural framework for administering the evidence, which in no way can infringe the principle of presumption of innocence”.

* Read here the Romanian version of the article