MP Ion Stan has been referred to court on influence paddling charges, accused of claiming important sums from businessman Nicusor Dima, the sponsor of his election campaign, in return for the promise of government contracts.
MEP Ion Stan was referred to court on influence peddling charges, being accused of having claimed important sums from businessman Nicusor Dima – allegedly the sponsor of his election campaign – , with the promise of obtaining him government contracts.‘National Anti-Corruption Department prosecutors have referred to court the defendant Stan Ion, a member of the lower Chamber of the Romanian Parliament, on two influence trafficking charges,’ reads a DNA release sent out yesterday. According to the indictment, in November 12 through to 14, 2012 Stan demanded from the person who denounced him (Nicusor Dima) RON 130,000 for buying the fuel needed for passenger vehicles to be used in the election campaign, as well as for procuring food products to be distributed around the parliamentary election date. ‘The defendant Stan Ion demanded money, suggesting he had influence over various decision-makers who smoothen contracts under implementation for him and who would also help him be awarded new contracts for works for companies directly or indirectly under the denouncer’s control. On the days of 16, 19, 21 and 22 November 2012, the defendant Stan Ion received, via his driver, Sarca Florin, four payments of RON 15,000 each (RON 60,000 in total), some of it being spent on promotional material to be used in the forthcoming election campaign. During May and November 2009, the defendant Stan Ion, as the president of the Dambovita county organisation of a political party, received indirectly from the same denouncer, based on a previous claim, items worth a total of RON 535,000 to be used in the election campaign. In return, the defendant let the denouncer think he had influence over various officials – mayors of Dambovita County localities – and was therefore able to convince those municipalities to award contracts to companies controlled by the denouncer either directly or indirectly,’ DNA explains in its communiqué. The quoted source also notes that the request that Stan be remanded in custody awaiting trial had been rejected by the Chamber of Deputies by the vote of its members on December 21, 2012, despite the positive vote previously given by the Legal Affairs Committee of the Chamber. Given the parliamentary immunity circumstances of the case, the prosecutors introduced a ban for leaving the country or 30 days in Stan’s case. The initial term was successively extended, the last one being due to expire on March 21, 2013. All motions filed by the defendant to dispute the ban for leaving the country were declined by the court. DNA also notes that, in the case of Stan’s driver, Florin Sarca, initially charged with accessory to the commission of the offence of trafficking in influence, a discharge measure was taken as it had become clear that one of the constitutive elements of the offence, from the point of view of the subjective side, was missing: a direct intention and knowledge of the criminal activity of the perpetrator.Ion Stan’s case has been referred to the High Court of Cassation and Justice. On February 14, after studying the evidence DNA had against him, Ion Stan said he would not resign as a member of Parliament if he was to be referred to the Supreme Court.