The lawyers for the building company Glorinal said decision makers and other employees of the company are detained abusively as they bear no relation to the illegalities of which the business entity is accused.
In a news conference at IPN, Victor Munteanu, the lawyer who represents the manager and founder of Glorinal, expressed his regret at the fact that particular persons are trying to mislead public opinion. According to him, the company was founded in 1998 and it always had an irreproachable reputation. It wasn’t involved in swindles and consciously fulfilled its duties towards investors.
The lawyer related that in 2008, Glorinal initiated a number of investment projects, namely the building of homes in different districts of the capital city, attracting investments from persons who wanted to buy commercial areas or apartments in those blocks. The works were launched and the blocks were erected. All the investors have lived in those blocks since 2016-2017, except for two persons - Vladimir and Oleg Nemțanu, who invested 880,000 lei in the homes. After the company during two years could not contact them, in 2017 they appeared and demanded to have the investment contracts terminated, asking that the invested sums be paid back to them immediately. “It was practically blackmail. They said they should be paid the sums immediately or they will block the company’s activity. Regrettably, the second scenario occurred,” stated the lawyer.
The two investors filed a number of lawsuits against Glorinal, asking to sequestrate buildings, bank accounts and assets of the company. The managers of Glorinal, who are now under arrest, since 2017 could not satisfy investors’ requests to come into possession of apartments. Now that a number of civil lawsuits were filed, the case is turning criminal. “I personally see an attempt to bring the prosecution bodies and the judiciary under control so as to transmit signals that the cases can be handled by order,” stated Victor Munteanu.
Ala Raevschi, the lawyer for Glorinal, noted that from her observations she can say that the judges incorrectly apply the law on insolvency and apply it to large companies, the common interest being to name another manager who would coordinate the takeover of the business.
