Stan Mustata’s accomplices, key witnesses of DNA in corruption case


Prosecutors of the National Anti-corruption Directorate (DNA) decided the arraignment of Stan Mustata, judge at the Bucharest Court of Appeal, and ordered his remand in custody, on charges of several corruption deeds, after he requested money more than once from persons convicted or accused, to rule in their favour.
In the indictment the DNA prosecutors upheld that in 2013 Stan Mustata together with defendants Boraciu and Alexandru set up an organized crime ring, supported by Mariana Curea, with the aim of committing judicial corruption crimes, in order to obtain material benefits. In this context, between Oct. 2013 and April 2014, the members of the crime ring have accessed confidential information included in the criminal cases pending before the Bucharest Court of Appeal, in order to identify and contact the bribe givers and influence buyers to claim material benefits from them, in exchange of obtaining favourable court rulings, the release reads.
The three individuals who allegedly helped Stan Mustata to find people willing to give bribe for favourable solutions of cases, namely court clerk Mariana Curea, Florian Alexandru who was close to the clan “The Usurers” and Ion Boraciu, an “old friend” of the judge, are the key witnesses of DNA.  According to the recordings made by DNA investigators in this case, judge Mustata told his accomplices that he is to offer a solution in Dan Voiculescu case, but Ion Boraciu suggested him to get rid of the case, as the magistrate submitted a request of abstention in this respect, which was rejected by the Court of Appeal of Bucharest. The prosecutors show in the indictment sent to Bucharest Court of Appeal that Boraciu was interested in the situation of the judge and warned him not to talk on the mobile phone, carrying suspicions that he might be in the centre of an investigation from the authorities. Thus, Boraciu seemed to know that Mustata is “targeted” by the Court of Appeal Bucharest and that he was not given Voiculescu’s case by chance, which he considered “the most difficult in the Romanian justice.”