Powered by Max Banner Ads
The National Anti-Corruption (DNA) prosecutor yesterday reiterated before the Supreme Court judges the itinerary of the ICA privatisation case, pointing out that the way in which Dan Voiculescu had chosen to act – resign from Parliament twice – was an abuse of law. Dan Voiculescu’s lawyer showed to the Court several documents including a letter from his client, without detailing on its content. The Court adjourned yesterday afternoon, with a decision pending on the jurisdiction motion introduced by the defence which will most likely be that the case is referred back to the Bucharest Tribunal. The ICA privatisation trial where Dan Voiculescu is a defendant was resumed on January 31, after the High Court of Cassation and Justice had granted, on January 16, the prosecutors’ request to judge the case in expedited procedure, changing the initial hearing date of April 25. The ICA case was back to the High Court in early January this year, after the Bucharest Tribunal declined its jurisdiction to ICCJ as Dan Voiculescu had just been re-elected to Senate. On January 28, Dan Voiculescu however resigned as a Senator, in less than a week after he had been sworn in. He explained his move by the latest ‘speculations’ suggesting the parliamentarians’ immunity hampered ‘justice making’ in his case. Voiculescu had done the same at the end of the previous legislature. DNA prosecutors say the fraudulent ICA privatisation had been completed for the benefit of Dan Voiculescu by under-valuation of institute assets by over EUR 7.7 M.Dan Voiculescu on Monday published on his blog a letter addressed to the Superior Council of Magistracy, asking for ‘an official position on the criteria all press organisations should follow when covering judicial proceedings in progress, obviously respecting the freedom of the mass-media and the right to correct and complete information of the public’. He says that several mass-media organisations have been conducting lately ‘a large-scale press campaign’ regarding his legal situation, ‘presenting partial information on file repeatedly and tendentiously’. ‘Although I have been directly targeted by this denigrative campaign, I categorically refused to comment on the content of my legal case and I have never made public even objective documents of fundamental importance, such as the court-ordered expert opinion which demonstrates that no damage exists in the case currently heard by the Court,’ Voiculescu stresses in his blog posting.