Five defendants in the Bute Boxing Gala case could be released when the 30 days of arrest ruled by the Bucharest Court of Appeals expire. The decision could be taken on Tuesday, March 3. The five defendants waiting for a decision on whether to keep them under preventive arrest or to place them under house arrest instead are Rudel Obreja, Tudor Breazu, Cornel Resmerita, Stefan Lungu and Gheorghe Nastasia.
In the same case, High Court judges have set March 5 as court date for Elena Udrea’s appeal against the preventive arrest measure.
Rudel Obreja is charged with two counts of money laundering, two counts of tax evasion and being an accessory to tax evasion.
Lupeni Mayor Cornel Resmerita was arrested in the same case. Stefan Lungu, Elena Udrea’s former advisor, and Gheorghe Nastasia, former secretary general within the Regional Development and Tourism Ministry (MDRT), are under house arrest.
According to the DNA, in 2011, MDRT secretary general Nastasia asked Adrian Gardean, representative of SC Termogaz Company SA, for approximately 10 per cent of the payments collected by the company, in exchange for promises that he will ease the approval of financing for works executed as part of the “Ski for Romania” program. Gheorghe Nastasia told Adrian Gardean that this sum of approximately RON 3 M should be paid to Rudel Obreja’s Europlus Computers SRL, in the form of sponsorship for the Bute Boxing Gala.
In 2010-2011, SC Termogaz Company SA signed several public procurement contracts financed from MDRT’s funds, as part of the “Ski in Romania” program, the most important of them concerning the construction of ski slopes in the Gutaiul Doamnei and Straja tourism areas, as well as in Borsec.
Likewise, Elena Udrea’s personal advisor Stefan Lungu received, in two instalments in 2010, the total sum of RON 695,367.06 from SC Termogaz Company SA representatives Adrian Gardean, Miron Gardean and Miron Lupulescu, in exchange for the promise that he will determine civil servants from MDRT’s leadership to approve the financing of contracts signed by the aforementioned company with several local administrative units.
Investigators note that several fictitious procurement contracts were created in order to hide the true nature of these payments.