The administration of “Proera Grup” SRL reacted to the statements of MP Sergiu Litvincenco, who accused the company of intending to fraudulently obtain 1.4 ha from the exhibitions center “Moldexpo”, based on an illegal scheme. The company’s director Gheorghe Efros said the MP, who is also a lawyer, if he is really concerned about the public interests, should know that the right to ownership is protected by the Constitution, the national legislation and by the international commitments undertaken by the Republic of Moldova.

In a news conference at IPN, Gheorghe Efros said it is a lot of 1.01 ha provided for a period of 35 years based on a lease agreement. The document issued by the General Division of Architecture, Urbanism and Land Relations shows that this is not part of the park, as it is insinuated.

Answering the accusations that a too small price was asked for that piece of land, Gheorghe Efros presented a number of pictures and asked rhetorically which investors would be ready to pay for this unclean and uncared for lot that is in a disastrous state. “Moldexpo” didn’t honor its landscaping commitments and the process of delimiting the piece of land that is now managed by “Proera Grup” was delayed.

“The administration of “Moldexpo” said the rental is too small and should be raised. As the manager of this company, I could pay no leu for this lot in the state in which it is now as the shareholders, the creditors who entrusted me with the talk of managing their resources do not accept such types of costs. They cannot allocate own funds and pay for an asset that is not used at all and does not bring revenues with which these costs could be covered. These are the assets that we purportedly want to obtain illegally. But we do not want them in the state in which they are,” explained Gheorghe Efros.

As to the real estate located on the territory of “Moldexpo”, the company’s administration said they had to accept it in 2011 instead of the money that was in an account of “Proera Grup” at “Universalbank”. When the documents were being prepared, the building was free from any special conditions on the part of the state. Even if the reconstruction of the building was envisioned from the start, access to the construction was ensured. Moreover, that building is used without the company’s consent for different purposes, including for military exercises.