Romanian Intelligence Service (SRI) Spokesman Ovidiu Marincea claims that the Service does not own covert companies, pointing out that “the time will come when all those who are senselessly tossing unproven accusations in the public space will be forced to present the evidence.”
“I’m looking at ex-officer Daniel Dragomir on B1TV and at what he is uttering on television. I understand that writing ‘SRI’ on the screen boosts ratings but, Mr Dragomir, name one of SRI’s covert companies. You know one? Does it exist? This is nonsense bigger than you. SRI does not own covert companies. It’s easy to decipher what you are trying to do, but please, at least remain within the limits of the plausible,” Ovidiu Marincea wrote on his Facebook page.
Moreover, the SRI Spokesman claims that the point has been reached when any problem that lacks explanations or solutions is pinned on SRI.
“Why? Because it is very difficult for a secret service to defend itself. We are not the Labour Inspection to pull out documents on television, nor some political party to send armies of influencers on television. Talking about covert companies, millions of Romanians being wiretapped and other enormities that stick easily with an audience willing to find “scapegoats” is the simplest method, but extremely dangerous. It is also the SRI’s fault, it could have done more in what concerns promoting the security culture among the population, more in its openness toward the citizen, so that the citizen would know us, would know what we deal with. Because, unfortunately, very many Romanians do not know what the SRI deals with. It is said we are tapping phones, we are spying, we are arresting people alongside prosecutors, things picked up also from television. From television, where, unfortunately, very many journalists are doing their research on Google,” the message reads.
Marincea pointed out that, from now on, the SRI will communicate more, will offer more explanations.
“And the time will come when all those who are senselessly tossing around unproven accusations in the public space will be forced to present the evidence,” the SRI representative concluded.
Ninety percent of the turnover of covert companies comes from state contracts, these companies being active in the field of oil products, excisable products, alcohol, media or IT, former SRI officer Daniel Dragomir stated on Sunday evening.
Daniel Dragomir stated that, albeit set up legally, covert companies end up being protected companies, this being the reason they are defended by several state institutions.
“In the economic gauntlet, the most important discussion is the existence of covert companies, it’s a legal one. Covert companies are active today – talking about Coldea LLC – in the areas where there is money. The most representatives [areas] where there is money: the oil products areas, areas that concern cigarettes and other excisable products, the alcohol area, media, IT. Not so much in real estate because it leaves traces. We are talking about money used and transferred from the funds of some covert companies. (…) A covert company that becomes exclusively interested in obtaining contracts and obtaining funds loses the objective it was set up for. (…) The problem is that these companies obtain 80, 90 percent of their turnover from state contracts. At that moment, things take a purely Romanian turn,” Dragomir stated on B1TV on Sunday evening.
Dragomir also mentioned how these companies end up being protected by the “judiciary’s gauntlet” when other competing companies note irregularities.
“These companies inconvenience their competitors and the challenging of tenders starts, the lawsuits start, complaints, litigation, denunciations. What happens between supporting a protected company and a company belonging to X. That’s when the judiciary’s gauntlet intervenes and is meant to protect these personal interests,” the former SRI officer pointed out.
Daniel Dragomir added that “the big fish” dodged important convictions for corruption, pointing out that public information on the indictment in the ‘Microsoft 2’ Case are “a bit different” from the one he knows.
“Firstly, based on what I know, this whole problem with Microsoft licences stemmed from the American company. The decision and the problem that surfaced was taken as a result of a decision taken in Redmond, namely the decision to make this scandal public. This decision was taken by Microsoft as a result of a strategy that could be called “internal damage control.” Microsoft hired a PR company that revealed that piece of news according to which money was allegedly paid for licences in Romania, China and Bulgaria. There are persons who know that emails were sent from the Microsoft headquarters, including from a very high level, including to Mr Tatomir and Mr Artopolescu, which concretely demanded “Stop sell licences to the Romanian government as they do not have so many PCs.” The big fear was that they would end up being delisted from the stock exchange because of this scandal,” Dragomir explained.