A priest, two mayors from Cahul district and a pensioner who holds the “Gloria Muncii” Order are the “guarantors” who allowed Vladimir Andronachi’s release from house arrest, sources from law enforcement bodies told ZdG.

The ruling was issued by Judge Gheorghe Balan, who examines in the first instance the cases in which Vladimir Andronachi is concerned.

The Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office announced that the decision of the Chisinau Buiucani Court of 11 August 2023 rejected the request of the state prosecutor to extend the preventive measure “house arrest” against the defendant Vladimir Andronachi and accepted the request of the defence to replace the preventive measure from house arrest to personal guarantee.

The term “personal guarantee” is included in the list of preventive measures that may be applied to a person. According to the Code of Criminal Procedure, in order to be admitted, each guarantor must deposit simultaneously to the deposit account of the prosecutor’s office or the court a sum of money from 50 to 300 conventional units (2500-15 thousand lei).

Article 179. Personal guarantee

(1) A personal guarantee shall consist of a written undertaking by trustworthy persons that, by their authority and the amount of money deposited, they guarantee the respective conduct of the suspect, accused person, defendant, including the observance of public order and his presentation when summoned by the prosecuting authority or the court, as well as the fulfilment of other procedural obligations. The number of guarantors may not be less than 2 and more than 5.

(2) Personal guarantee as a preventive measure shall be admitted only upon written request of the guarantors and with the consent of the person in respect of whom the guarantee is given.

(3) Upon presentation of the guarantee in writing, each guarantor shall simultaneously deposit to the deposit account of the public prosecutor’s office or the court a sum of money from 50 to 300 conventional units.

(4) The rights and obligations of the guarantor, as well as the manner of execution of the guarantee, shall be provided for in Article 181.

Article 181. Mode of disposal and exercise of guarantee by natural and legal persons

(1) The personal guarantee and the guarantee of an organization shall be disposed of by the prosecutor conducting or carrying out the criminal prosecution by order, and by the court – by a judgment.

(2) The public prosecutor or the court, having determined that the guarantor is trustworthy and that the suspect, accused or defendant may be subject to the personal guarantee or the guarantee of the organisation provided for in Articles 179 and 180, shall decide on the application of such preventive measure, informing the guarantor of the essence of the case and of his obligations. The guarantor shall then support his request or withdraw it, which shall be recorded in the minutes.

(3) The guarantor shall be entitled at any time during the criminal proceedings to withdraw his guarantee. The guarantor may withdraw from the guarantee if a new charge has been brought, circumstances have arisen which the guarantor did not or could not have known about at the time the guarantee was given, the guarantor is unable to further guarantee the conduct of the accused, the accused due to the departure to another place or serious illness of the guarantor, as well as the termination of the existence of the guarantor legal entity, departure to another place or transfer to another organisation of the accused, the amount deposited for the guarantee shall be returned to the guarantor by the body that ordered the guarantee.

(4) The guarantor may also receive the amount deposited for the purpose of securing the guarantee if:

1) the prosecutor or the court has changed the preventive measure for reasons unrelated to the conduct of the accused, defendant or has revoked the preventive measure;

2) the legal person guarantor has lost legal capacity and cannot provide the guarantee.

(5) The amount deposited by the guarantor in providing the guarantee shall be transferred to the account of the State, based on the court decision, if the guarantor:

1) has not secured his obligation for a respective conduct of the suspect, accused, defendant;

2) has unjustifiably waived the guarantee.