The Justice Minister Raluca Pruna does not rule out the variant of an Emergency Ordinance of the draft through which the Government wishes to transpose the European Directive on the extended confiscation of assets, should Prime Minister Dacian Ciolos agrees upon it.
“I’m not going to wait for it until my tenure ends. (…) We have endorsed two Emergency Ordinances (OUG – author’s note) during my mandate: OUG no. 6, referring to interceptions and the OUG no. 18 on the Criminal Code’s amendments for which I’ve been criticized (…) but I don’t rule out, as long as I find it important to the society, I don’t rule out the possibility of an OUG. Of course, considering the Premier agrees. But I trust that this Parliament that is made of members who are all claiming several sources for the budget – if we have a consensus in this country that the education should receive 6pct of the Gross Domestic Power (…) and that Health Care needs more money -, and I turn up with a draft that is one of the leverages that could bring more money to the budget, I hope to having the Parliament’s cooperation,” said the minister in a broadcast at the private Digi24 TV station.
Raluca Pruna mentioned that the bill on the extended confiscation is the transposition in the Romanian legislation of a European Directive, whose deadline is 4 October. But she admitted that the Parliament could not adopt it by 4 October since the public debate is not closed yet.
“If we want a bigger budget I believe it is high time to take back what was stolen from us. This extended confiscation – to speak very metaphorically – doesn’t only mean the confiscation of what was stolen, but also the economic benefit a stolen good produces. If, for instance, I steal a sum of money which I use to buy myself some real estate that produce rents, the state should take back through the extended confiscation the sum I have stolen and the fruit of the stolen good,” explained the minister.
She stressed that these provisions would not apply to the persons who have already been sentenced, since the criminal law lacks retroactivity aspect, except for the case when it is about ‘a milder’ criminal law.
“The draft law also provides the confiscation from the third parties, meaning it will be possible to confiscate a certain good from a third party if someone under criminal procedure is transferring their goods to the third party – on condition that evidence exists and that that good be considered by the justice as being illicitly gotten,” she specified.