A Few Remarks Regarding the Transparency and Integrity of Public Administration in Romania
Rationale
The transparency and integrity of public administration is a major condition for Romania’s passing from a totalitarian regime to democracy and prosperity and for its integration in the economic, political and security systems of the Euro-Atlantic community. There is unanimous consensus as far as this necessity is concerned in the Romanian society.
Despite
all this, the lack of transparency and the corruption in public administration
structures have constantly affected Romania’s economic, social and political
developments and its relations with the European and Euro –Atlantic institutions,
as well as its possibility of integration in these structures. The last
years have seen a severe worsening of the situation and the most recent
internal evaluations, as well as those made by international institutions
come to strengthen this conclusion (1).
During
June 1999–May 2001, I have been monitoring two aspects directly connected
to the corruption phenomenon in Romania:
I)The
transparency of certain public institutions
II)The
private interests of high officials and of civil servants
In
1999, I submitted to the managers of Banca Comerciala Romana ( BCR–Romanian
Commercial Bank) the request to be allowed access to the following information
of public interest: the names of the high officials and civil servants
who received from “Bancorex” (whose capital is public in its majority)
loans under preferential terms, in comparison with those normally used
by the bank (BCR, whose capital is public in its majority), is the one
which took over the assets and liabilities of the former “Bancorex” after
the latter was liquidated due to bankruptcy). In the newspapers, as well
as in public debates, there were rumors –which were not officially denied
– about a large number of high officials and civil servants who had benefited
from such loans and about the fact that this situation was one of the causes
that led to bankruptcy. The managers of the bank denied me access to the
information requested, calling upon banking secrecy and the fact that according
to the law, such data, if made public, would “be detrimental to the interests
and reputation of the bank or its clients”. This reply was in total disagreement
with the provisions of the Constitution, both due to the fact that the
money administrated by “Bancorex” was public in its majority, as well as
because the behavior of high officials and civil servants, especially when
they take advantage of their situation in order to gain personal profits
at the expense of public money, is undeniably a matter of public interest.
Following the refusal of BCR, in 1999 I made the same kind of request to
the governor of the National Bank of Romania (BNR), Mr. Mugur Isarescu,
from whom I received no answer (according to its own statute – Law no.
101/1998, chapter V- BNR is in charge of “bank supervision”, which also
means ensuring the viability and proper working of the bank system). In
1999, regarding the same refusal, I also made the same request to president
Emil Constantinescu, and in 2001, to president Ion Iliescu and Prime-Minister
Adrian Nastase. In the first case, the answer was along the same lines
as that received from RCB, and in the second case there was no answer.
My actions, as far as the presidents Emil Constantinescu and Ion Iliescu
are concerned, were based on art. 80 of the Constitution, according to
which “The President of Romania must make sure that the Constitution is
obeyed and that the public authorities carry out their activities in a
proper manner.”
In
the year 2000, I requested from the managers of the National Bank of
Romania access to the following information of public interest: the
sponsorships granted by the bank after 1989 (the sponsorship date, the
beneficiary, the purpose of the sponsorship and its amount). The newspapers
repeatedly published information – which was not officially denied – about
the fact that the sponsorship amounts exceeded the legally imposed limit
and that many sponsorships were made in violation of the law. The Bank
denied access to the requested information, arguing that it communicates
to the public by means of the materials published by the bank periodically,
materials that only include “information meant to be published”.
In
the year 2001, I requested from the managers of CEC to give me access
to the following information of public interest: the names of the persons
who, during 1997 –2000, benefited from loans granted to young families
for buying or building a house (the names and professions of the persons
and the value of the granted loans). The newspapers published information
according to which dignitaries
and public officers took advantage of their position to obtain for them
and their relatives such credits, with budget-subsidized interest (the
cases of President Emil Constantinescu’s advisor Dorin Marian and of the
Prefect of Bucharest, Ion Iordan). The management of CEC refused to grant
my request, arguing that it is privately - and not state-owned. This response
from CEC is obviously unsubstantiated, because: the state is the sole shareholder,
the credits were subsidized from the public budget and the circumstance
that dignitaries and public officers abused their positions to obtain this
kind of advantage is definitely a matter of public interest. I wrote twice
to president Ion Iliescu in connection with this request and about the
answer from the management of CEC, but without any result.
In
2000, I requested from Prime-Minister Mugur Isarescu to be granted access
to the following information of public interest: which are the private
companies (name and address) that received credits from European Union
funds (through programs such as “Coherence and Regional Policy”, “Development
of small and medium-sized businesses” etc); which are the companies that
received credits from the loans contracted by Romania for investments in
the private sector of manufacturing and services from the International
Bank for Reconstruction and Development (IBRD) and the European Bank for
Reconstruction and Development (EBRD). My request was left unanswered.
This request was also addressed, in 2001, to Prime-Minister Adrian Nastase
and the President of the “Ion Tiriac” Bank, Anthony van der Heijden (as
a partner bank in some of the EU programs) In the first case I received
no answer, and in the second case I received a phone call from a bank employee
saying that I could be informed of the “aspects of principle” concerning
the manner in which the credits were provided, but that she is “more than
certain” that the names of the beneficiary private companies will “never”
be made public. I could not obtain this kind of information from the Romanian
officers of the Bucharest Delegation of the European Commission, whom I
contacted. There were reports in the press and in public debates that certain
dignitaries and public officers took advantage of their positions in order
to obtain such credits for their businesses and the businesses of their
families and relatives. An answer received on 27 April 2001 from the Minister
of Development and Forecast refers to some state-owned manufacturing, services
and banking units with name and address, that received credits contracted
by the Government from IBRD and EBRD but not as requested, to privately-owned
ones.
In
conclusion, none of the 11 requests made over 2 years to the managements
of state-owned banks (or privately-owned that also administer public money)
and to high authorities of the state – received any favorable follow-up.
This represents clear proof that access to information on the administration
of public money is restricted in a blatant and totally unacceptable manner,
and at the same time it represents an important explanation of the high
level of corruption in Romania.
The
present legislation does not clearly establish which are the incompatibilities
between public and private positions. The Constitution establishes the
incompatibility between acting as a Government member and holding a paid
function within a commercial organization, as well as the fact that constitutional
law will establish any other incompatibilities. As far as the Members of
Parliament are concerned, the Constitution stipulates that constitutional
law can establish such incompatibilities. According to Law no. 69/1991,
the Prefects and Vice-Prefects are not allowed to hold functions or carry
out paid professional activities within public companies, commercial companies
or any other lucrative organizations or structures, while Law no. 188/1999
stipulates that civil servants can not hold positions within public companies,
commercial companies or in any other lucrative organizations and can not
carry out lucrative activities in companies with private capital which
are related to their public office. Given the high level of corruption
in Romania, the newspapers, the non-government organizations and some political
forces etc. have considered that private business and any other lucrative
activities have to be strictly separated from holding public positions
(2).
After
1989 many high officials and civil servants used their positions to gain
personal or group benefits, consisting, for instance of:
-
gaining important personal advantages at the expense of certain economic
state enterprises (such a situation has been possible due to the extremely
slow rate of “state” property privatization; after ten years from the beginning
of the privatizing process, approximately 70% of the “state” property has
not been yet privatized.)
-
obtaining loans under preferential terms from public banks, from CEC or
through external governmental credit lines.
-
holding paid positions in the management team of manufacturing, services
and state bank organizations.
-
fiscal facilities – in certain cases, amounting to billions of lei – by
gradually canceling debts.
- obtaining large
amounts of money from illegal sources to fund politicians and political
parties (3).
-
the illegal occupancy and purchase – quite often at derisory prices – of
houses from the state housing fund or that were abusively nationalized
by the totalitarian communist regime (4).
There
is evidence that indicates that in many cases dignitaries obtain from such
affairs income 10-20 times their salaries, amounting to hundreds of million
or even billions of lei. This happens when, according to the data made
public by the Prime-Minister, as of 24 May 2001, 44% of the Romanian population
“lives in poverty”. Furthermore, the public positions that the dignitaries
hold provide them with virtually complete imunity. The fact that the dignitaries
take advantage of their public positions in their private dealings has
the effect of imposing an “unfair competition” on the other businessmen
and ultimately it damages the mechanisms of the free market economy. There
are dignitaries who are at the same time business partners with members
of the underworld, with decision makers in the local administration, with
officers of the information agencies, with police officers from the economic
departments etc. Although a large number of dignitaries, high-ranking public
officers or their funding sources were involved in corruption deeds, none
of them was held accountable (5).
Starting
with 28 March 2001, I have sent letters to several dignitaries and public
officers, asking them to state whether:
As
the small number of answers – under 20% of the total, and in the case of
Members of Parliament as low as 5% – was not relevant enough, I supplemented
my own data with data from the Trade Register and from the newspapers (especially
nation-wide dailies “Adevarul”, “Evenimentul Zilei”, “Jurnalul National”,
“Ziua”, “Romania Libera”, “National”, “Cotidianul” and the weekly “Academia
Catavencu”). The press investigations were also considered in connection
with certain corruption deeds where dignitaries and public officers were
involved. Because of difficulties in getting the information, I had to
limit my analysis on the dealings of dignitaries and public officers and
Members of Parliament (and to a lesser extent to ministers and secretaries
of state). Starting with 26 April 2001, the newspaper “Adevarul” initiated
and published a series of inquiry reports, by electoral section, called
“Businesses of the Parliament Members”; so far it has covered only half
of the electoral sections. It is impossible to obtain a complete image
on the businesses of the dignitaries. There are cases when they either
declare that they have no businesses and are then found in the records
of the Trade Register, or they have them under the name of relatives or
other persons, or, especially due to the specific business owners, the
records of the Trade Register are incomplete and are not up-to-date. Dignitaries
also take advantage of the fact that Law 31/1990 and its methodological
norms of 1998 are incomplete in that it is not mandatory to record the
transfer of share ownership in the Trade Register. The actual income obtained
from the businesses is also hard to establish. First, the available data
would indicate that more than half of the Romanian economy is “grey” and
second, the financial accounting reports show cases when the dignitaries’
businesses, although they have turnovers in the billions, record profits
of a few million lei or even “zero profit”. Not submitting financial accounting
statements at all is another quite common practice. Some of the names of
the dignitaries who were identified to have or have had private businesses
– and in certain cases another kind of profit-making activities – are shown
at notes 7 and 8.
Both
during the past legislatures and the present there have been many cases
when highest-ranking dignitaries have developed their own businesses at
the same time, and in many cases in conflict with their responsibilities
and decision-making competence (a few examples at note 8).
From
what I have found it appears that some 70% of the dignitaries have private
businesses. There are indications that the proportion of Members of Parliament
having private businesses is roughly equal for all the parties currently
in the Parliament. The analyses and findings made so far, confirmed by
this analysis, justify the conclusion that corruption among the dignitaries
and the highest-ranking public officers is widely spread. The lack of transparency
in the public administration and the dignitaries’ and politicians’ lack
of integrity are the main causes of the severe corruption proliferation.
Corruption seriously affects Romania’s development towards democracy and
prosperity and towards its European and Euro-Atlantic integration process.
(1)
A study of the Foundation for the Development of the Civil Society, carried
out in May-June 2000, found, among other things, that “the population of
Bucharest perceives corruption as a generalized phenomenon, with 91,7%
sensing it”.
During
the last year’s elections, the Metro Media Transilvania Institute took
an opinion poll, which showed that most of the people that had been questioned,
felt that the priority of the new administration should be punishing the
persons responsible for the corruption in Romania.
On
12 October 2000, following their own analyses, four Romanian non-governmental
organizations – Transparency International Romania, the Pro Democratia
Association, the Academia Catavencu Press Monitoring Agency and the Foundation
for the Development of the Civil Society – adopted and publicized the text
of a common statement, which, among other things, said: “Corruption is
one of the most serious problems faced by Romania”, “Romania is perceived
internally and internationally as a country where public offices and dignities
are being abused by their holders to obtain personal or group advantages”.
In
its study for 2000 on the corruption perception index, Transparency International
ranked Romania 68th out of 90 countries in the order of increase
of corruption level (Corruption in Romania is rated 2.9 on a scale of 10.0
and is worse than in Columbia, Kazakhstan, Thailand, Belarus, Ghana, Senegal
or Zimbabwe).
In
its current report for 2000 regarding Romania, the European Commission
stated: “Corruption continues to be a widely spread problem affecting the
entire system. It not only undermines the functioning of the legal system,
but it adversely affects the economy and has caused the population to lose
confidence in the public authorities.” In its report for 2000 regarding
Romania, the European Parliament mentioned: “Notices that despite of many
initiatives from the Government, there are still many things to be done
to prevent corruption, which undermines the political and administrative
structures of Romania.”
A
study of the World Bank, published on 2 March 2001, found that the most
important consequences of corruption in Romania are the drop of the population’s
living standard, the overnight enrichment of certain social categories
at the expense of the already disfavoured categories and the moral decline
of society, and that 67% of the Romanians think that “all or almost all
of the public officers are corrupt”.
In
the meeting he had on 29 January 2001 with the Romanian Minister of Defense,
Ioan Mircea Pascu, the Secretary General of NATO, George Robertson, estimated
that Romania’s priorities in preparing for accession to the North-Atlantic
Alliance should be continuing the reform process and eradicating corruption.
In
its report for 2000 on the observance by Romania of human rights, the State
Department of the United States found that journalists are being punished
for criticisms regarding government corruption.
In
a meeting that Nils Revelius, the Swedish Ambassador in Bucharest (his
country is presides the EU) had with Romanian Parliament members in the
second half of February 2001, he mentioned that in view of its integration
in the Union, the quickest steps to be taken by Romania should be against
corruption.
(2)
In the general elections of 1996, the alliance of parties and civic organizations
CDR and its presidential candidate, Emil Constantinescu, included the separation
by law of private business from the exercise of public authority positions
in their program “The Contract with Romania” (after acceding to power,
the commitment was abandoned).
Renate
Weber, president of the Foundation for an Open Society, in “22” magazine
issue 13/2001: “Parliament members have constantly had other income-producing
and time-consuming activities. Extra-parliamentary activity has maintained
an image in the public eye of a corrupt political class, using parliamentary
dignity to obtain personal gain. It should be appropriate that the only
allowed activity be academic teaching.”
With
the occasion of her last visit in Romania, Emma Nicholson, member of the
European Parliament, rapporteurfor
Romania, stated that an aspect that concerns the European Parliament is
the generalized corruption among public officers at all levels, and it
is very important that the public officer have only one job, in service
of the state.
On
11 February 2001, the members of the current Government announced that
it was decided that government dignitaries should stop being part of the
management of companies (state-owned or privately owned). However no statute
to this end was adopted and such an interdiction, if it was actually set,
was never and is not observed.
(3)
A study carried out in May 2001 by the Pro Democratia Association showed
that political parties only declare about 10% of the funds they have and
use. A similar estimate – in that “party funds for the electoral campaign
are in a proportion of 80% from illegal sources”- was made during 2000
by the former Minister of Justice, Valeriu Stoica. The Account Court, enabled
by the law to make the verifications required by it, did not do so, under
the pretext that it wanted to be tactful with “sensitive matters” at party
leadership level.
(4)
The report of the Parliamentary Inquiry Commission, of 1995, on the assignment
of housing to dignitaries and public officers and the Reports on the same
subject of the Government’s own Control Department from 1996 and 1997 showed
167 cases when important dignitaries and high-ranking public officers were
illegally assigned housing (that they later purchased for derisory amounts).
Among the persons involved in this file one could find president Ion Iliescu,
prime ministers Petre Roman, Theodor Stolojan, Mugur Isarescu, Adrian Nastase.
There are many cases when high-ranking government officials and their families
occupied and in some cases bought at derisory prices houses that had been
nationalized by the totalitarian communist regime.
(5)
A study of the “Freedom House” Foundation found that although in Romania
corruption is rather widely spread, “no high-ranking official was ever
convicted for corruption”.
(6)
Letters sent and answers received:
-
out of 55 deputies, only one answered: Cornel Boiangiu, PNL (negative
to both questions); did not answer: PDSR – Constantin Teculescu,
Ionel Marineci, Eugen Nicolicea, Viorel Gheorghiu, Adrian Casuneanu Vlad,
Gheorghe Ana, Ion Florescu, Valer Dorneanu, Valeriu Stefan Zgonea, Marin
Cristea, Pavel Todoran, Ristea Priboi, Marian Balan, Viorel Hrebenciuc,
Alexandru Stanescu, Filip Georgescu; PRM – Octavian Mircea Purceld,
Vlad Gabriel Hogea, Vasalie Mois, Dumitru Puzdrea, Nicolae Leonachescu,
Dorin Lazar Maior, Costel Marian Ionescu, Daniel Ionescu, Ion Mocioi, Daniela
Aprodu Buruiana; PD – Anca Daniela Boagiu, Paula Maria Ivanescu,
Radu Mihai Berceanu, Vasile Nistor, Ion Carstoiu, Cristian Sorin Dumitrescu,
Liviu Gheorghe Negoita, Victor Sorin Lepsa, Vasile Bran, Bogdan Niculescu
Duvaz, Alexandru Sassu; PNL – Radu Stroe, Viorel Gheorghe Coifan,
Nini Sapunaru, Valeriu Gheorghe, Vasile Mandroviceanu, Catalin Micula,
Dinu Patriciu, Dan Radu Rusanu, Victor Paul Dobre, Anton Ionescu; UDMR
– Gheorghe Tokay, Laszlo Fazakas, Laszlo Borbely, Robert Kalman Raduly,
Sandor Konya Hamar, Ferencz Asztalos, Istvan Erdei Doloczi
-
out of 28 senators, 3 answered – all positive at question 2 – Trita
Fanita, PDSR, Viorel Marian Pana, PD and Dorel Constantin Onaca, PRM; did
not answer – PDSR – Traian Novolan, Oliviu Gherman, Dan Mircea
Popescu, Constantin Toma, Constantin Buza, Ilie Platica Vidovici, Doru
Laurian Badulescu, Constantin Nicolescu; PRM – Vasile Horga, Carol
Dina, Mihail Lupoi, Ion Carciumaru, Ilie Petrescu, Mircea Mihordea, PNL
– Dan Constantinescu, Corin Penciuc, Mircea Teodor Iustinian, Gheorghe
Flutur; UDMR – Csaba Sogor, Denes Seres, Stefan Pete, Attila Verestoy;
PD
– Ion Cristolovean, Romeo Octavian Hanganu, Radu Vasile.
-
out of 14 ministers,
4 answered – Ioan Mircea Pascu (question 1
– no, question 2 – non-answer), Miron Mitrea (1-no, 2-yes, until 1996),
Octav Cozmanca (1,2-no), Marian Sarbu (1-no, 2-non-answer); did not
answer – Dan Matei Agathon, Ioan Rus, Dan Nica, Aurel Constantin Ilie,
Ilie Sarbu, Serban Valeca, Silvia Ciornei, Mihai Nicolae Tanasescu, Leonard
Gheorghe Cazan, Georgiu Gingaras
-
out of 36 secretaries of state, 9 answered; answered no to both
questions: Petre Ciotlos, Cezar Macarie, Florin Stadiu, Nicolae Marasescu,
Nicolae Berechet, Pompiliu Budulan; Alin Burcea – 1-no, 2-yes; Romeo Paul
Postelnicu – 1-yes until 1994, 2-no; Ion Selaru – 1-yes until September
2000, 2-no; did not answer: Dumitru Bulumete, Ion Taban, Ionel Flesariu,
Tudor Florescu, Sorin Bota, Sergiu Sechelariu, Ion Semeianu, Lucian Biro,
Gheorghe Paslaru, Sin Gheorghe, Ovidiu Natea, Iulian Iancu, Robert Moucha,
Mihai Berinde, Gheorghe Oana, Gheorghe Gherghina, Ion Ilie, Ioan Jelev,
Petru Lificiu, Nicu Tanase, Alexandru Farcas, Pavel Abraham, Aurel Sorin
Encutescu, Gheorghe Matache, Mihai David, Ioan Cindrea, Ion Giurescu.
-
out of 22 prefects, 4 answered: Grigore Rus (County BN) and Aurel
Tarau (BH), no to both questions; Corneliu Rusu Banu (IS) 1-yes until January
2001, 2-no; Costica Macaleti (BT) 1-no, 2-non-answer; did not answer:
Otilian Neagoe (BV), Catalin Mardare (BC), Mircea Lup (SB), Vasile Ion
(BZ), Mircea Pepelea (VL), Ioan Tibulca (VS), Ioan Vargau (TL), Teodor
Nitulescu (TR), Ioan Cusnir (SV), Ioan Toganel (MS), Dumitru Tataru (IF),
Marian Balan (IL), Ovidiu Marciu (GR), Cornel Mondea (DJ), Vasile Soporan
(CJ), Viorel Popescu (BR), Constantin Tamaga (AG), Ioan Rus (AB).
-
out of 11 chiefs of county police departments, 8 answered, all no
to both questions: Damian Miclea (County PH), Aurica Bordea (CS), Lucia
Iamandi (GL), Ulica Ioan (AR), Jipa Traian (CT), Vasile Muresan (MM), Dibus
Ioan Petru (VN), Tudor Danut (CL);
did not answer: Mihail Spiridon
(NT), Doru Dumitrescu (MH), Petru Cotolan (HD). The chief of the General
Police Department, general Florin Sandu, refused to answer my written request
of 27 March 2001 to make available to me a list of the chiefs of county
police departments.
(7)
Parliament members: PDSR – Viorel Hrebenciuc, Ilie Platica Vidovici,
Doru Ioan Taracila, Constantin Nicolescu, Ion Seche, Ioan Stan, Florentin
Sandu, Traian Novolan, Viorel Balcan, Traian Dobre, Culita Tarata, Gheorghe
Dragu, Gheorghe Dutu, Constantin Nita, Nelu Pujina, Viorel Stefan, Vintila
Matei, Gheorghe Ana, Florin Iordache, Mihai Tudose, Aurelia Vasile, Ovidiu
Branzan, Fevronia Stoica, Bucur Dionisie, Cristian Nechifor, Ion Harsu,
Melu Voinea, Iosif Armas, Emilian Prichici, Constantin Toma, Oliviu Gherman,
Pavel Tarpescu, Ioan Timis, Ion Scarlat Iriza, Catalin Popescu, Marian
Ianculescu, Gheorghe Popescu, Ristea Priboi, Ion Stefan, Florea Voinea,
Paul Tiberiu Neamtu, Carmen Dumitru, Petru Andea, Dan Verbina, Gheorghe
Suditu, Eugen Arnautu, Marcu Gheorghe
Parliament
members – PRM – Dumitru Puzdrea, Dumitru Petru Pop, Nicolae Patru,
Corneliu Vadim Tudor, Dorin Lazar Maior, Carol Dina, Ioan Belu, Gheorghe
Zlavog, Dumitru Dragomir, Anghel Stanciu, Ion Mocioi, Mircea Purceld, Vasile
Horga, Gheorghe Pribeanu, Costel Marian Ionescu, Ludovic Mardari, Gheorghe
Dumitru Moisescu, Ion Pastiu, Vasalie Mois, Nicolae Cret, Mircea Bucur,
Nicolae Enescu, Doru Dumitru Palade, Nicolae Florescu, Ionel Alexandru
Parliament
members – PNL – Dinu Patriciu, Dorin Grigore Popescu, Dan Constantinescu,
Catalin Micula, Cornel Popa, Paul Pacuraru, Victor Babiuc, Valeriu Stoica,
Calin Popescu Tariceanu, Nini Sapunaru, Victor Paul Dobre, Andrei Ioan
Chiliman, Valeriu Gheorghe, Ovidiu Draganescu, Nicolae Stirbet, Herman
Fabini, Radu Alexandru Feldman
Parliament
members – PD – Radu Berceanu, Alecu Sandu, Adriean Videanu, Ioan
Oltean, Romeo Octavian Hanganu, Simona Marinescu, Bogdan Niculescu Duvaz,
Vasile Mandroviceanu, Vasile Bran, Vasile Nistor, Gheorghe Barbu, Nicolae
Nan, Gheorghe Albu
Parliament
members – UDMR – Verestoy Attila, Szabo Karoly Ferenc, Gyorgy Frunda,
Marko Bela, Francisc Pecs, Tiberiu Toro
Trade
Register units provided all the information requested, with the exception
of the unit from Bacau County, regarding Prime-Minister Adrian Nastase,
Minister of Tourism Dan Matei Agathon and the secretary of state from the
Ministry of Public Works, Transports and Housing Sergiu Sechelariu, brother
of the mayor of Bacau. The Camber of Commerce of Botosani could not specify
whether Prime-Minister Adrian Nastase is shareholders at a company in Botosani
County or not.
(8)
The former Minister of Transports, Traian Basescu, together with his wife,
involved in at least 4 businesses; he had businesses, by his 2 personal
companies, as administrator with full powers and associate, interfering
with the area in which he had responsibilities as a minister – land, sea
and air transport, maintenance, repairing and dismantling of ships and
recovery of recyclable metallic waste and scraps; as a public dignitary
he received credits for his businesses under preferential terms, amounting
to hundreds of thousands of dollars, obtained by the Government from external
sources for the development of small- and medium-sized businesses; he used
the protocol villa – nationalized building assigned by the Government as
personal housing – as an office for his companies.
-
the former Minister of Defense, Victor Babiuc, with his wife – involved
in at least 7 businesses; one of his companies received fiscal facilities
for a debt of about 10 billion lei to the public budget; for another of
his companies he obtained, from the public patrimony, under illegal terms,
with a resolution of the Government he was a member of, a building for
the headquarters.
-
the former Minister of Finance, Traian Decebal Remes obtained illegally
offices for his wife’s companies; he covered, as Minister of Finance, a
tax evasion of approximately 13 billion lei for his relatives’ companies,
companies for which, before being a minister, he used to keep the accounting
books for a while.
-
the current Minister of Industry Dan Ioan Popescu recently made an investment
of 12 billion lei in his own businesses, an amount equivalent to his salary
as a minister for more than 50 years.
-
the current Chairman of the Senate, Nicolae Vacaroiu – as a vice-chairman
and, later, as chairman of the senate, was also manager of a bank with
a capital of several billion lei (he abandoned this position following
repeated criticisms from the press). The bank is owned by the controversial
businessman Sorin Ovidiu Vantu and was established after he collected a
few hundreds of billions lei from the National Investment Fund, shortly
after its collapse. Currently, the Chairman of the Senate is a shareholder
of this bank. The positions held by the Chairman of the Senate (and vice-president
of the governing party) in this bank could be one of the explanations for
the fact that PDSR is making, through its current Government, diligences
to compensate the NIF victims that it did not make in other similar cases
– “Caritas”, SAFI etc.
-
the current Minister of Development and Forecast, Gheorghe Romeo Leonard
Cazan is an administrator in 3 companies; all 3 companies (two in Arges
County and one in Dambovita County, counties with a great lumbering potential)
specialize in wood processing and trading.
-
the current Minister of Interior, Ioan Rus, was, during the period 1993-2000,
the General Manager of the Transilvaniana representative office of Mercedes-Benz,
a capacity that was legally incompatible with that of the prefect, which
he held concurrently.
-
the former secretary of state at the Ministry of Finance, Dan Radu Rusanu
– sole associate, administrator and shareholder in 5 companies.
-
other cases: the secretary of state at the Ministry of Tourism Alin Burcea
(has businesses in the area of this ministry), the former Minister of Justice
Valeriu Stoica, the former secretary of state at the Minister of Justice
Flavius Baias, the former secretary of state at the Ministry of Waters,
Forests and Environment Protection Anton Vlad, the former advisors of president
Emil Constantinescu – Iustin Tanase, Dan Capatana.
-
no responsibility was assigned to any of the dignitaries in connection
with which inquiries were conducted; no measures were taken against any
of the tens of dignitaries and high-ranking public officers involved in
corruption scandals, none of them was removed from office and none of them
resigned.
Note:
This analysis was presented on 1 June 2001 in a press conference held in
Bucharest