Ziua, August 1,98 Mafia Caselor Nat eng.doc

ZIUA presents five illicit methods to obtain very valuable buildings for a trifle
THE NATIONALIZED HOUSES MAFIA

The Law No 112 also stipulates how it can be violated * The accomplices of the "nationalized houses mafia" are the local public authorities and the Justice * The five methods most often used by the "mafia" are:
"future option's", "the heir from the Occident", "The (public) notary authenticates/certifies documents for parole (?)", "the judge is also paid by the State" and "bribe for all".
After 1989 in the press, on the streets or at the hairdresser there is a lot of talk about:
"the Chinese mafia", "the Gypsy mafia", "the cigarettes mafia", "the coupon mafia", "the privatization mafia", etc. Each of these "mafia" appeared due to inefficient laws. Some were specially conceived so there were loopholes (?) for those fishing in the troubled waters of the transition. In the past few years, starting immediately after the Law No 112 on the regulation of juridical situation of some buildings for dwelling taken over by the State was promulgated on November 25, 1995, the "nationalized houses mafia" appeared.
The nationalized houses are restituted only to Romanian citizens
According to Law No 112/1995, "the former owners - natural persons - of the buildings for dwelling as such taken over with title by the State or other legal persons after March 6, 1945 which were property of the State or other legal persons on December 22, 1989" regain their ownership in kind or benefit of compensations.
According to the Government Order No 20 from January 17, 1996, republished, "only the former owners - natural persons (...) as well as their heirs benefit of the repairing/restoring measures stipulated by the Law No 112 from 1995." The former owner or his/her heirs must have Romanian citizenship on the date of application or prove the start of the legal procedure to obtain Romanian citizenship, no matter the residence or dwelling place. The heirs up to the second degree (?) are, in straight line: parents and children - first-degree, and grandparents and grandsons and granddaughters - second degree; in collateral line: brothers and sisters.
In order to protect the tenants, the lawmakers decided that all leasing contracts concluded should extend for a five-year period following the date on which the commission or court's decision became final. Willing to diminish the speculation with nationalized houses the lawmakers considered it is necessary to regulate the alienation of the apartments. So it was decided these couldn't be sold ten years following the date of the purchase.
Establishing the value/appraising of nationalized houses is just another way to steal.
The value of the compensations is set based on some 1980's laws. The value of the restituted apartment or the compensations deserved (?) if the restitution is not made cannot amount more than the total of the average wage (on the economy) on a 20 years period. Practically, this means: the average wage is set to 400,000 lei per month, which multiplies with 12 months multiplied with 20 years. The result is: 400,000*12*20=4,800,000*20=96,000,000. If the value of the restituted building is higher than this figure, the former owner or his or her heirs does not have the obligation to pay off the difference.
In the case of the repairing measures granting compensations, the calculus is identical. Therefore, in the cases of the buildings belonging to the category "having the destination of guest houses or for State protocol, or declared historic monuments or part of the national patrimony/inheritance or of those used as residences for former or present-day dignitaries", the former owner receives(?) only 96,000,000 lei, even if the building worths much more. It must be specified that the buildings listed above usually have a value three to four times bigger than the sum set by the law.
The Annexe 1 - calculus/price decision model - of Government Order 20/1996 is a complicated system with hundreds of measurements, coefficients and subjective estimations/appraisals by the members of the commissions.
The accomplices are the local public authorities and the Justice
"The nationalized houses mafia" uses multiple methods. Therefore, the offences/infringements of the law perpetrated by the persons who chose this form of enrichment vary from forgery, ...............(?), fraud, deceit, bribery, ..................(?). As the gain/profit is of at least few tens of millions, those involved in this kind of business are unscrupulous. The accomplices usually are public functionaries, in the first stage employees of the Mayor's Office or members of local councils - in their capacity as members of the commissions for implementing the law - and corrupt public notaries. If during the process occurs a "litigation" which is solved according to the Civil Law procedures, the leading part is performed by corrupt judges.

Five illicit methods to obtain property of a building
ZIUA presents some of the methods most often used to illegally/dishonestly become the owner of a nationalized building:
The "future option's" method;
The "heiress from the Occident" method;
"The (public) notary authenticates/certifies documents for parole (?)" method;
The "bribe for all" method;
The "judge is also paid by the State" method.

"The nationalized houses mafia" uses one of the most modern methods in the market economy.
The "future option's" method is one of the most refined ways to obtain property over a building taken by force during the communist regime. Those who use this method become over night the owners of very valuable houses without having to resort to primitive maneuvers such forgery and without civil suits lasting long years.
In the first stage they publish (?) announcements in different newspapers. They offer to lone old-aged persons looking after and burial in exchange for the conclusion of a leasing contract for the house bought by the "tenant titular of contract".
Usually, the nationalized houses in which old persons live have not been claimed by anybody. In all the cases we encountered, one of the clauses refers to the conclusion in the shortest time of a deed of intention of conveyance (?) between the old persons and the tenant. The old persons, often having weak eyesight and hearing, sign the leasing contract. Afterwards, they are convinced with all kind of tales/stories to sign the deed of intention of conveyance that comes into effect after the ten years stipulated by the law. Contracts of this kind - "future option's" are very often used on the Western stock exchanges. The purchaser pays an installment on/makes a partial payment for a stock and if after the period stipulated in the contract the deal is still suitable, he pays the rest of the sum. If the deal is no longer suitable, the purchaser may call off the deal, loosing only the first payment.
In this case the old-aged persons are vulnerable. The existence of the leasing contract compels them to sign the deed of intention of conveyance. The "businessman" gains the property after the owner's death, without ever making the rest of the payment. Until property is gained, he or she uses the house as a tenant for an extremely small sum.
I found a case in which the tenant - future owner, after the death of an old lady, sublet the downtown apartment to a company for 1,200 US dollars per month.
The public notary "takes you at your word"
When the "heiress from the Occident" method is used to gain property, it is impossible that a public notary has not been corrupted. In these cases, a mandate that came from "far and away" is fabricated. By it, a "descendant" mandates X or Y, in fact the person who will really gain the property, to represent him before the Commission or, if it is the case, before the court. The mandatary also has a photocopy of an illegible document ("due to the faulty fax transmission") which should certify the Romanian citizenship of the "descendant". The documents are presented to a public notary who for mandatary's parole and a small present hidden in an envelope authenticates the "documents". From now on, there is just one more step to go. Either the Commission for implementing the Law 112 orders the entry of the "descendant" into possession, or the Justice decides this.
With the help of the same notary a leasing contract for around ten years is also concluded, with one of the members of the mandatary's family as the tenant.
The "bribe for all" method is used only in the difficult cases
Smart (?)men, they use methods typical to the Balkan area. In the case of a valuable building with an unclear situation, with an "investment" of few tens of millions lei, the Commission for implementing the Law is "convinced/persuaded" of "documents" which in reality are flagrant fakes. If real heirs appear, the "descendant" appeals to some judges or district attorneys and, after a hasty suit, becomes the happy owner.
There are situations in which the judge is of good will and accepts the documents, as there is no technical capability to verify their authenticity.
If the real heir or heiress is a needy/poor person, the "descendant" takes advantage of this situation, offering him or her ridiculously small sums to withdraw or to create lack of procedures (?).
Without documents, a mysterious French woman became the owner of a 16-roomed villa.
During the documentation period I found an absolutely spectacular case. The stake was a 16-roomed villa in Olanesti, Valcea County, known by the natives as "Rose Blanche Villa". The sumptuous villa was first requisitioned and then nationalized on the basis of the Decree No 92/1950. The heiress, Ioana Nicolescu, the wife of the former owner's brother bequeathed all her fortune to Ion Dicu. Meanwhile, the former wife of the deceased professor Faust Nicolescu disposed by an authenticated proxy on the name of the same Dicu that he "should carry out all legal formalities for taking possession of the <<Rose Blanche>> Villa."
After the Law No 112 came into effect, Ion Dicu, armed to the teeth with deeds and documents appeared before the Commission for implementing the Law, which was set up according to the provisions of the Government Order No 20/1996. His application was rejected and, of a sudden/out of the blue, an heiress from Paris appeared named Anca Manitiu. Manitiu pretends she is the sole heiress of the villa and the wife of her mother's brother, namely Ioana Nicolescu, "has never been, de jure or de facto, the owner" of the building. On April 1, 1997, The Commission for implementing the Law decides: "to reject/decline Ion Dicu's application, as it was submitted by a person not entitled (?)".
The Justice doesn't know the procedure
The decision is absolutely incredible. Anca Manitiu did not present any document proving that she "has Romanian citizenship on the date of the application or" proving "the start of the legal procedure to obtain Romanian citizenship" and also did not provide documents showing that the villa had been her mother's property. The French woman, whom nobody knows, has sent a mandate and an application for intervention (?) which were filed unauthenticated and which were accepted in court.
After two years of hearings and spending with the lawyers, the "Rose Blanche" Villa case finally gets to court. The Commission's decision is annulled and the building is apportioned between Ion Dicu and Anca Manitiu. The decision is final, with 15 days for appeal. Concerning the court's decision, one has to notice that the evidence presented by the French heiress' mandatary do not comply with the procedure. For example, according to the Article 45, paragraph 6 a) of Government Order 20/1996, "the applications may be submitted in person or by mandatary, with special mandate authenticated by a public notary." In reality, this procedure has not been complied with.
Mitaru thinks he is the Almighty of the Law 112 in Valcea
Concerning the decision of the commission led by the president of the County Council, Anton Mitaru, the provisions of Article 18 of the Law 112/1995 should have been applied: "The members of the commissions, as well as all public functionaries involved in this Law's implementation who fulfill their duties behind time or wrongly or do not fulfill them at all shall be subject to disciplinary, pecuniary or penal sanctions."
Infringing the law even more, after the court's decision, Mitaru appealed on behalf of the Valcea County Council. Although there is no regulation concerning the capacity of the local public authorities in the litigations appeared after the Law 112/1995 came into effect, the president of the commission wants by all means that the entire "Rose Blanche" villa becomes property of the French heiress. For now, is still a mystery why the commission for implementing the law of nationalized houses wants that a very valuable building becomes property of a certain person.
László KÁLLAI