The Chief-Prosecutor of the Directorate for the Investigation of Organised Crime and Terrorism (DIICOT), Daniel Horodniceanu, states in an interview to Mediafax that the oldest case DIICOT has dates back to 2004 and that his institution cooperates with the National Anticorruption Directorate (DNA) in dealing with ‘major cases’.
‘Many of these cases have been dealt with lately, DIICOT – the Central Structure has processed an impressive number of cases in the last three months. I believe the oldest case, as far as I could see in the Judicial Inspection report, was from 2004. At this point I don’t think we have any more cases from before 2007 – 2008. The 2004 case has been dealt with, an indictment has been prepared, it consisted of 2approximately 250 volumes’, said the head of DIICOT.
Asked how he could explain the fact that high-profile cases, including the one of Omar Hayssam, Adriean Videanu or Varujan Vosganian, had been processed for years, Horodniceanu explained that such cases require longer investigation time and ‘they need to be judged on a case by case basis, something the Judicial Inspection actually did and what we are going to do with subsequent successive evaluations’.
As for the person or persons who should give explanations for the unsolved cases dealt with by the Central Structure of DIICOT, dating back to over a year ago, the head of the institution said: ‘The Judicial Inspection will be back to DICOT and the objectives are certain: cases older than five years and those of economic-financial macro-crime, especially tax evasion and money laundering, older than a year. Without neglecting the other pending cases – we are trying to carry out our work normally – we need to also answer the requests of the Judicial Inspection and carry out what we have promised to do to the Prosecutors’ Department, after the presentation of the Judicial Inspection report on 8 July’.
‘DNA and DIICOT deal with major cases’
Asked how tight the cooperation of DIICOT was with SRI, Horodniceanu said: ‘Our relations with SRI are correct, institutional ones’.
In addition, he also commented on the relations of his institution and DNA, led by Laura Codruta Kovesi.
‘Due to the nature of their jurisdiction, DNA and DIICOT deal with major cases, and that is also due to the institutional relations with both the intelligence services and, more or less, other institutional partners’, said the chief-prosecutor of DICOT.
Horodniceanu was also asked to comment on the fact that, before his appointment to office, in May, his candidacy had been contested with the argument that, whilst he was the head of DIICOT Iasi, he was unaware of the fact that Mayor Gheorghe Nichita was using Local Police and members of the Corduneanu criminal clan for monitoring his lover.
‘In principle, I would not comment on the situation you mentioned because the Central Structure of DNA is currently working on this case. However, I would severely wrong the Iasi Territorial Service past and present prosecutors if I did not remind that the members of the Corduneanu clan – If I’m not wrong, there are about 70 – have been brought to trial in three criminal matters pending in the various courts, some since five years ago. On the other hand, criminal investigations may not be doubled, as that would be counter-productive for the criminal investigation bodies and the mayor of Iasi city has been a subject of DNA investigation for several months’, Daniel Horodniceanu said.
Not least, he stressed there were no prevention measures against corruption, except for a rigorous selection of control: ‘There is no recipe for corruption prevention measures, the selection of prosecutors must be one of the criteria, and the control and communication by the heads of service another one.