The Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office (PA) announced on Tuesday, January 24, that it will not challenge the acquittal sentence handed down on January 4 by the Buiucani Court of Chisinau to former deputy governor of the National Bank of Moldova (BNM) Emma Tabirță and the institution’s former heads of department, Matei Dohotaru, Ruslan Grate and Vladimir Turcanu, because it would not be “illegal or unfounded”.

The four were acquitted in the criminal case brought for negligence in service, admitted between 2010 and 2014, which allegedly involved the laundering of $22 billion from the Russian Federation through the “Moldinconbank” bank (Laundromat case, editor’s note).

“The state prosecutor agreed with the factual and legal arguments presented by the court”

“Examining the sentence in the case, the state prosecutor agreed with the factual and legal arguments presented by the court, considering it relevant that, when investigating the case in 2016-2017, the provisions of Article 38 of the Law on Financial Institutions No. 550 of 21.07.1995 were not taken into consideration, according to which the application of any sanction, including a fine, against Moldindconbank, was not an obligation but a right of the Council of the BNM, of which Emma Tăbîrță was a member

In the sense of the cited rule as well as according to the provisions of Articles 23 – 26 of the Law on the National Bank of Moldova, no. 548 of 21.07.1995, which provides for the composition and powers of the Council of the BNM, the possibility of applying sanctions against Moldindconbank was not within the competence of the defendants Vladimir Turcanu, Matei Dohotaru and Ruslan Grate, who at that time were heads of directorates, and their conduct in relation to the execution of their duties did not cause direct material damage to the state budget”, the PA claims.

At the same time, the defendants were indicted in 2017, being charged with committing the offence provided for in Article 329 para. (2) letter b) of the Criminal Code, but by the Constitutional Court Decision no. 24 of 17.10.2019, and the Constitutional Court Decision no. 15 of 22.05.2018, the aggravating circumstance established in letter b) of para. (2) of Article 329 of the Criminal Code – “serious consequences” and “public interests or”, were declared unconstitutional.

“Thus, the court found the absence of real possibilities for the defendants to perform their service obligations and respectively causing material damage to the state or to natural/legal persons as a consequence of their improper performance of service obligations,” the Prosecutor’s Office also notes.

According to the institution, the criminal prosecution in the criminal case was initiated in August 2016 by the PA on the basis of “reasonable suspicion” of the commission of the offence under Article 329 para. (2) letter b) of the Criminal Code – improper performance by a public person of service obligations as a result of negligent or reckless attitude towards them, if it has caused damage to a large extent to public interests or rights and interests protected by law of natural or legal persons, actions that have caused other serious consequences.

The incriminated criminal acts concern the period 2011 – 2014, and relate to the controls carried out by the BNM at Moldindconbank, as a result of which deviations from the legislation in force and the departmental acts of the BNM were found in the activity of the audited financial institution, including in the part related to the measures to be taken in the field of identification, protection and counteraction of money laundering and terrorist financing risks.

“According to the indictment, the employees of the BNM, in the period from 2011 to 2014, neglected their service duties related to the supervision of Moldindconbank’s activities, failing to react in a timely manner to particularly large transactions, which were of a transitory nature, through correspondent accounts of Banks of the Russian Federation, opened in Moldindconbank, to/from the debtors indicated in the orders on enforcement and seizure of funds issued by bailiffs, allegedly illegal actions that are under investigation in another criminal case generically called “Laundromat”, which is currently pending at the stage of criminal prosecution,” the PA notes.