Minister Efrim targets millionaire magistrates involved in raider attacks

Minister of Justice Oleg Efrim notified the Prosecutor General’s Office about the investigation conducted by the reporters of Adevarul newspaper regarding the assets of Supreme Justice Court judge Nina Cernat, Info-Prim Neo learned from a press release of the Ministry. According to information published by Adevarul, Nina Cernat lives in a building valued at tens of millions lei in the luxury complex “Orasul Povestilor” (The Fairy Tale City) in Chisinau. The real estate is officially owned by Ana Rusu, Nina Cernat’s mother in law, and is subject to a litigation as a result of which the court ruled that the construction company should pay Ana Rusu 25 million lei for not finalizing the building in time. Oleg Efrim demanded the Prosecutor General’s Office to verify this information and the details of the transaction published by Adevarul, to find out whether this is a case of masked ownership of a property. The Ministry of Justice will comment on the other details unveiled by the journalists’ investigation after the Supreme Justice Court will rule the appeal regarding the payment of 25 million lei in compensation. The Minister also examined the case of court officer Ana Onica from Ialoveni, involved in the raider attack on Agroindbank. The Disciplinary Board decided that the court officer committed a disciplinary offense by violating professional integrity and honor, the morals and by showing negligence in carrying out the enforcement proceedings. As a result, she was stripped of her work license. According to the Minister’s order, Ana Onica has 10 days to give up the seal, the badge, the enforcement proceedings, the archive and registries at the Center territorial Chamber of court officers. According to the Ministry of Justice, Ana Onica was involved in last year’s raider attack on Agroindbank. The inspections of the Security and Intelligence Service and of the Disciplinary Board revealed that Ana Onica did not inform the debtors about the initiation of enforcement procedures, didn’t perform the conciliation procedure and acted without a writ of enforcement issued by court.