Last week, a man, wanting to install a booth with agricultural products in a market in Chișinău, went to Buiucani Praetor’s Office to get support in solving the problem. It is a beautiful and necessary event, Moldova is an agricultural state, autumn is coming, there are so many vegetables and fruits to gather from the fields of the homeland and to sell, and the markets are just the navel of sales of the agricultural products.
The man who wanted to sell agricultural products was arrested, now under criminal investigation and risks 7 years in prison. This states the press release of the National Anticorruption Centre of August 5, 2021. The statement shows that the man, wanting to obtain a place in a market, would have proposed a bribe of 10,000 euros, but the office of the Buiucani Praetor’s Office denounced him and authorities acted immediately.
The efforts of the Praetor’s Office and the National Anticorruption Centre seem to be highly praised, they counteracted a great act of corruption, they stopped a dangerous attempt and the culprit will be punished. But why do we feel like laughing and crying while reading this press release? Why does a man who wants to sell agricultural products at an agricultural market in an agricultural state end up proposing bribes to get this right? What does the official think about the conditions for providing services in his sector? Why does a man who wants to sell agricultural products offer a bribe of 10,000 euros? Did he make so much money from selling onions or did he want to sell human organs? Shouldn’t the National Anticorruption Centre have asked this question and answered it in this press release? If we now do an opinion poll at the Central Square or near the Praetor’s Office, or the City Hall, asking people which institutions they think are the most corrupt, of course, the City Hall with National Anticorruption Centre will be mentioned, and probably no one will call traders in the agricultural markets among the most corrupt.
The sad part of this joint action of Praetor’s Office and the National Anticorruption Centre is that this is how the process of fighting corruption is mimicked. But let’s not stick to a specific statement, because there are more.
For example, the statements on the confiscation of assets, published weekly by the National Anticorruption Centre, show the confiscation of several assets, including 6 agricultural lands and agricultural machinery, on August 2, 2021, or a Dacia car from 2009 and a Ford from 2007, in the communiqué of 9 August 2021. Aren’t we all long awaiting the confiscation of the fortunes of high dignitaries and those who stole the billions? The last three communiqués evoke the heroic activity of detaining and searching the 18 people from the Institute for Land Use Planning, accused of claiming and taking bribes worth 250 or 2,000 euros.
Let’s see, maybe the General Prosecutor’s Office offers more evidence on fighting corruption. On the website of the Prosecutor’s Office, we find the same 3 recent communiqués about 18 people from who would have received 250 euros each. The Anticorruption Prosecutor’s Office worked in this case side by side with the National Anticorruption Centre.
A few days ago, prosecutors caught two clairvoyants accused of fraud. What about big corruption? It seems to be out of control. That is, after letting Platon leave Moldova, the Anticorruption Prosecutor’s Office recently announced that it is already requesting Platon be wanted, as he would be guilty of acts of corruption and fraud.
Also, after the Shor Party deputy Denis Ulanov was back in Parliament with parliamentary immunity and could escape from Moldova at any time, the Anticorruption Prosecutor’s Office sends Ulanov’s case to the court.
Society wants statements on Prosecutor’s Office“s performance, and they instead issued a statement stating that “The level of understanding by the current Government of the principles of the rule of law is unexpectedly low.”
We have not identified recent communiqués that would have analyzed the performance of prosecutors in the fight against big corruption on the website of the Superior Council of Prosecutors, but the institution is deeply opposed to how, lately, the Prosecutor’s Office ”is attacked by serious allegations which have no legal support and are essentially manipulative,” as they state in a press release.
The Superior Council of Prosecutors considers that the prosecutors work well and the others hinder their work. Bogdan Zumbreanu is of the same opinion, the former head of the National Anticorruption Centre who, after being dismissed from this position, agreed to work there as head of a department. After some time, he left the position, but sued the Parliament, demanding to be restored on his duty again, as head of the National Anticorruption Centre. He left National Anticorruption Centre voluntarily, and he wants to be reinstated by the judges.
It is nice that many of those fired from the system or accused of poor performance, corruption in public office appreciate the right to justice, making public statements about the independence of institutions, the rule of law and the sacredness of human rights. But, unfortunately, they do not take responsibility for the disastrous state at which the legal system has reached, full of corruption, opacity, obedience to corrupt politicians.
Maybe it is necessary to open booths for corrupt prosecutors, officers and judges in agricultural markets?.. It would be easier for them to catch onion sellers and the remaining clairvoyants.