The Prosecutor's Office is letting off steam

Page 1

The Prosecutor’s Office is letting off steam Instead of the court, the prosecutor is trying to convince the media of the defendants’ guilt by Krum BLAGOV

A

t the beginning of March the Prosecutor’s Office announced that Bulgarian tobacco state-owned monopoly Bulgartabac’s chief executive Hristo Lachev has been alleged in tax fraud and crimes of office. He was not to be suspended from office for the time being though. Announcements of this sort are perplexing. Warning a senior government official that he is under investigation is, to say the least, unwise. He could cover up any crimes committed. If, of course, he has committed any. How come, in recent years, there were so many cases of loud investigations of high-ranking individuals, which were somehow wound up on the quiet, on the preliminary stage due to the lack of an established crime. One such glaring example came with the allegations against Hristo Grigorov, chairman of the Bulgarian Red Cross (BRC), which were later dropped for lack of evidence. Two years ago, on 3 February 2006, Mr. Grigorov was held in custody while the organisation’s premises were thoroughly searched in an ostentatious 100-men police-and-state-administration operation. At the time, then-Interior Minister Rumen Petkov explained via bTV that a series of crimes involving millions had been committed at the BRC. The allegation claimed that international aid had been received by the BRC, which, instead of being given away for charity, had been sold on the market. BRC representatives explained that the donor’s express wish had been for the aid to go to the Chief Mufti’s Office, and it had been passed on with a protocol. In the meantime, Mr. Grigorov was released from custody and placed on parole, as there was insufficient evidence for detention in custody. This is the lightest form of detention, which logically suggests that the allegations had not been backed with solid evidence. A few days later, prosecutor Kamen Sitnilsky announced that there is another on-going investigation concerning a medical supplies company owned by Grigorov’s family. The then head of the General Directorate for Combating Organised Crime (GDCOC), Vanyo Tanov, announced to the media that Grigorov was selling medicine for cancer patients at higher prices, i.e. the head of a charity organisation was making a profit out of suffering. Then all of a sudden details of the allegation went deficit. In September 2006, in response to a query by the Trud daily, the Supreme Court of Appeal explained that the period of the investigation had been extended due to new checks being carried out, and the court enquiry being referred to Switzerland where a check was under way for bank accounts belonging to Hristo Grigorov. The accusations, it seems, preceded the hunt for evidence. In the end, none was found, and the case was abandoned without ever getting to court. What’s paradoxical is that it was the defendant who wanted

1 OBEKTIV

a lawsuit, but one is only compulsory if the investigation protracts for over two years. What is most suspicious is that the case was closed by the Prosecutor’s Office exactly a week prior to the expiry of this term. The case concerning the chief of the Sofia Central Heating Company, Valentin Dimitrov, was the exact opposite: the investigation was initiated following information from Austria about his local bank accounts. This is how Austrian services work. In the case against Dimitrov, however, there was yet another information leak regarding the preliminary proceedings, namely that the defendant had sent a letter while in custody mentioning a then-field minister - Rumen Ovcharov. It later transpired that the letter had been seized months ago, but had only been revealed at a time when Ovcharov was in the middle of a public scandal involving the former head of the investigation, resulting in both of them stepping down. The three cases - of Lachev, Grigorov, and Dimitrov, leave the impression of investigations where the Prosecutor’s Office and the Interior Ministry are not trying to uncover real crimes but rather

RUN A SHOW CAMPAIGN Some observers claim that the aim is to hit certain individuals and related organisations, while others say that it is all about demonstrating a political will for dealing with crime at the higher levels of power to the EU. The outcome, however, is exactly the opposite. The public and international players are left with the impression that this is much ado about nothing, a cover-up smoke screen to fake combating crime. Besides, all those offended are in their right to claim compensation from the state for the blemish. BRC chief Hristo Grigorov demanded public apology from Minister Petkov and promised to sue Vanyo Tanov. The law concerning the state’s liability for damage to citizens was passed during Todor Zhivkov’s rule in 1984. The particular occasion stemmed from a court error - the case of Vanyo Alexandrov who was sentenced to long years of imprisonment for the murder of his wife. He had done quite some time when the true murderer was apprehended. The law gave Alexandrov the opportunity for compensation, but the events of the past had deeply damaged his health and he is currently no longer among the living. The logical question is why tax-payers have to pay for someone else’s mistakes. According to the Code of Criminal Procedure (CCP) details of the preliminary proceedings may not be made public. There is a catch, however, without the permission of a public prosecutor. This is in some contradiction with two other postulates of the CCP, namely that the parties to the criminal proceedings are equal and the proceedings are competitive; because the prosecution has rights, which the defence and defendant lack.


Turn static files into dynamic content formats.

Create a flipbook
Issuu converts static files into: digital portfolios, online yearbooks, online catalogs, digital photo albums and more. Sign up and create your flipbook.