A number of 18 police officers, of which ten police officers are holding managing positions, are subject to disciplinary investigation after the report issued by the Interior Minister’s Control Corps related to the policeman Eugen Stan, accused of sexual assault against a minor, Minister Carmen Dan announced on Friday evening.
Former General Inspector Bogdan Despescu (recently dismissed by Carmen Dan) and the Deputy General inspector of the Romanian Police Marius Voicu, are among the police officers who are subject to the disciplinary investigation, Minister Carmen Dan mentioned in a TV show at Antena 3.
The MAI report on the pedophile policeman: He wasn’t fingerprinted and photographed in one case and he was protected by his superior
The Ministry of Internal Affairs (MAI) revealed on Friday evening the report of the control conducted at the General Inspectorate of the Romanian Police (IGPR) and at the Bucharest Police in order to establish how policeman Eugen Stan, accused of sexual assault against two minors, acted.
The report’s summary has 22 pages and refers to both the way in which the cases of sexual assault allegedly committed by Eugen Stan happened, and the way in which the police officers acted. In addition, it refers to the way in which Eugen Stan was protected by his direct superior, whose driver he was.
In the case of the event of October 18, 2015, the complaint was registered at the 16th Police Department. A criminal case with unknown perpetrator was opened, and the file was taken by the Bucharest Police Department on January 7, 2018.
The report mentions that the actions conducted by the police officers were appropriate.
“It was established that the perpetrator of the sexual assault crime is Stan Eugen, a police officer at D.G.P.M.B. – The Road Police Brigade. According to the reports made by the police officers who went on site, the first assertions related to the police status of the immobilized person who was indicated as the author of the assault, have been made by those who immobilized him. Later, while traveling to the 18th Police Department, the immobilized person was asked by one of the agents if he is a policeman, and he confirmed his quality, indicating also the structure of whose employee he was. Also, the two agents mentioned that Stan Eugen was partially dressed in his work-wear (with pieces of equipment consisting of a shirt, tie and sweater), wearing a civilian coat specific to the season (jacket) over the other clothes and being in a slight state of drunkenness (he was emanating alcoholic breath)” reads the report.
The fact that Eugen Stan was a policeman was noted in the police officers’ report.
“Also as a result of the fact that Chief Police Officer Stan Eugen was identified as the perpetrator of the seized deed, he wasn’t fingerprinted and photographed, therefore his data and image weren’t introduced in the databases. Later, On December 12, 2016 (Monday), the file was handed over to the Prosecution Office attached to the 5th District Court of Bucharest, where a criminal case was opened, related to the sexual assault crime” the report also reads.
After the criminal case was opened, it was sent back to the 18th Police Department, in order for the investigations to be continued.
“Given the above mentioned issues, we can conclude that the sexual assault committed on December 12, 2016 by the said Stan Eugen, police officer at D.G.P.M.B. – Road Police Brigade, was reported in compliance with the provision of the Line Order” the reports also says.
The document mentions that although the representatives of the Minister’s Control Corps cannot rule on the activities carried out by the judicial police officers in the criminal cases, “The investigation committee, according to the checks made within its attributions, found that in the period December 11, 2016 – January 7, 2018, no procedural activities were conducted in the criminal file”.
“Thus, the investigation committee appreciates that the proposal to suspend the preliminary investigation is not legally grounded, but it relies on a limitative and subjective interpretation of the legal provisions” reads the document quoted by News.ro.
In the case of the aggression committed against the two minors, the reports mentions that the Event sheet doesn’t contain other mentions but the ones referring to the content of the committed deed, the victims and the fact that the perpetrator is unknown, “although the agents who stayed on site sent the first cues related to the perpetrator around 12.00 o’clock, and the first images caught by the surveillance cameras placed in the elevator were also revealed”.
The report also mentions other problems, including the fact that “the event was reported only to the Bucharest Police dispatch, and the event sheet wasn’t introduced in the information system in order to be disseminated to the upper echelon, namely to the I.G.P.R. dispatch”, as well as the fact that “a certain reluctance was found at all the officers holding command position at the police substation, related to the nature and seriousness of the notified deed, given that the appropriate measures to collect the evidence and to identify the perpetrator were taken only after about 2 hours since the deed was acknowledged (after the first images were seen)”.
However, the report mentions that the information that led to the identification and capture of the perpetrator came from within the system.
The report also refers to the fact that Eugen Stan was protected by his direct superior, and that he never worked in the 3rd shift.
“The investigation committee appreciates that there was a close professional relationship between Eugen Stan and his direct superior, and, moreover, that a certain professional protection was provided by his superior” the report also shows.
The report mentions that Eugen Stan’s superior, who was using him as a driver, wasn’t entitled to an office car.
The deeds committed by Eugen Stan’s former superior, according to the report, are “exceeding the job duties by using Chief Police Officer Eugen Stan as a driver, although he had other duties according to his job description (as a road police officer), and although he wasn’t entitled to a driver as a head of department, which led to the non-fulfilment by the agent of the duties included in his job description, and some collective dissatisfactions; exceeding his job duties by establishing Chief Police Officer Stan Eugen ‘s shifts only when he was working, thus knowingly transferring to the agent duties that were not specific to his position, in order to benefit from the services of a driver”.
The document also mentions that Rene Vornicu “didn’t accomplish his job attributions/duties by not being involved in identifying behavioral problems and by not asking or proposing a psychological evaluation of Chief Police Officer Stan Eugen, considering the occurrence of the criminal case (a disruptive behavior)”.
Other eight police officers will be sanctioned with a warning. The report will be sent to the prosecutors of the General Prosecutor’s Office.
Former head of Police Bogdan Despescu: I was in possession of data related to the Minister’s intention to dismiss me. The report mentions untrue data
Former head of Police Bogdan Despescu says that he wasn’t surprised of the disciplinary investigation started on the occasion of identifying the pedophile policeman in January, mentioning that he was in possession of data according to which Minister Carmen Dan was intending to dismiss him since the end of 2017.
“I wasn’t surprised by the start of my disciplinary investigation as a result of the checks mad by the Minster’s Control Corps, because this decision was ‘necessary’ to argue the public statements by which the Minister of Internal Affairs prejudged on my guilt, both when she asked me to resign as Chief Inspector, and later, on the occasion of the statements made in Media. Besides, I was in possession of data, some of which became public, since the end of 2017, related to the Minister’s intention to dismiss me, so the event occurred on January 5, 2018 became a speculated opportunity and a real pretext” the former Police Chief Inspector Bogdan Despescu stated in a press release.
He added that he wasn’t informed about the conclusions of the Control Corps, and that they “were kept secret until they were published and commented in Media by the Minister”, and that the report mentions untrue data.
“I had no possibility, in any moment, to exercise my right to defense before being publicly exposed by this report. Moreover, by circulating the control report in Media, at a TV show, the Minister caused the impossibility for me to previously provide clarifications and to present arguments and data that contradict and even overturn the factual situation presented by the Control Corps about me, to the competent bodies and to the public opinion. Regarding the way in which I exercised my duties, the report presents both untrue data by the manner in which they are argued, and incomplete information, likely to mislead the public opinion, in order to cause public reluctance of the society against me” Despescu added.
According to the former head of IGPR, the report’s summary has discrepancies.
“It is incompletely mentioned that the Bucharest General Police Directorate reported the case to the General Inspectorate of the Romanian Police on January 5, 2018, without mentioning that the same information was sent in the same time, at 17.57, also to the Ministry of Internal Affairs. On the other hand, untrue issues are presented related to the fact that I have tardily ordered measures only on January 15, 2018, speculating that I acted a few days after the perpetrator was captured” Despescu claims.
He mentions that he will provide the disciplinary committee and prosecutors with all the documents necessary to establish the truth.
“Depending on the legality and the seriousness of handling the disciplinary case, I reserve my right to address to the courts and/or to the competent bodies, in order to also check if the documents made by the Control Corps and those related to my disciplinary investigation were issued in compliance with the law, by observing the presumption of innocence, and if they contain false and tendentious statements revealed to the public in order to discredit my image as a career officer, as a (General) Quaestor of the Romanian State” Bogdan Despescu added.