{Info-Prim Neo Interview with Viorel Chetraru, the director of the National Anticorruption Center, interview 10 of 12 in the “Year 2012 in the life of Moldova and its people” Series} [ – 2012 was the year when the Center for Combating Economic Crimes and Corruption (CCCEC) was reorganized into the National Anticorruption Center. You headed the old organization and now are heading the new one. Why was this reorganization needed and what was its stake?] – The objective of the CCCEC reform was to strengthen the capacities of all authorities to prevent and combat corruption. This objective was a priority for all those who represent the political class today, both the opposition and the parties that compose the Eurointegration Alliance: fighting corruption was an item placed high on all the electoral platforms; everybody talked about the need to curb this phenomenon. Many expressed their dissatisfaction with how work was being done in this area, being partially guided by the perception of the people about the level of corruption in the country. All these findings called for more efficient measures to prevent and combat corruption. As a result, an analysis was done of the instruments and mechanisms available to the state, of how efficient and functional they were, bearing in mind that the Center was not the only institution responsible for combating corruption. As for the institution that I represent, before the reform it had a very complex task, which was in particular ensuring the economic security of the country by preventing and fighting money laundering and terrorism financing. The extended mandate assigned to the CCCEC previously didn't allow it to concentrate its efforts in the most efficient way possible. This is why a first step towards reforming the Center was to transfer functions of investigating economic offenses to the Ministry of the Interior and the Customs Service, and this was supposed to make all the authorities in an equal manner more responsible in combating this scourge. As for the stake of this reform, it is a real and promising one, and is about an adjusted institutional framework, the Center's independence and a mechanism to ensure the integrity of its officers, a mechanism which will be subsequently extended to cover all public servants, police officers, prosecutors, judges and so on. These absolutely novel elements aim to increase the level of the people's confidence in the law enforcement. [ – How much time do you need so that the new organization can demonstrate its necessity and efficiency? In particular, how much time do you need so that the really 'big fish' of corruption get in the new nets of the Center? Does the new organization have the required will and capacity?] – This process should not have a strictly determined duration, it should be continuous and permanent. The shift in the approach towards corruption is about, first of all, a change in the attitude, behavior and mentality of each and every citizen, and here time is a relative notion. We can't use the notion of reasonable time here. However, we have two months to finalize the process of employing staff to the NAC. Then all the stages of establishing the authority will follow, including the whole filtering process that will ensure the integrity of our officers. From my point of view, we have one year at the most to demonstrate to society that the reform has begun and that it is based on functional and feasible principles. In a year's time we need to disclose major cases of corruption. As for 'big or small fish', we don't work with such a taxonomy; there are provisions of criminal procedure that classifies perpetrators of corruption. Certainly our actions will target all levels, both horizontal and vertical, of the authorities and sectors that are deemed most corrupt, and the people need to be cooperative on this. [ – Did the reorganization occur because the last straw eventually broke the camel's back? How was the year 2012 compared to other years in terms of the presence of corruption and fight against corruption?] – The reform of the CCCEC was envisaged in at least two national policies – the 2011-2015 Anticorruption Strategy and the Justice Reform Strategy. These two policies, plus the 2011-2014 Government Program by the way, provided for the reform of the Center. It is important that the progress of the reforms is consequent and uninterrupted, and implemented stage by stage at the level of each authority responsible for fighting and combating corruption in our country, because such a reform can only have impact when it is implemented across the law enforcement system. 2012 was a year full of reforms, in which the activity of preventing and combating was continued. We saw a rise in the number of corruption cases discovered, nearly 400, and a much more diversified range of cases compared to previous years. But this does not mean that the phenomenon of corruption rose in magnitude as well. Some 240 cases of corruption were sent to court this year, and they involved different categories of perpetrators, including high-ranking tax officials and heads of territorial subdivisions. There were also cases of traffic police officers arrested, about 20 lawyers were caught in the act of mediating acts of corruption, and four prosecutors were indicted on corruption charges. This year we saw 13 imprisonment sentences, unlike previous years, when courts mostly delivered probation sentences or imposed fines. The year 2012 was full of actions of preventive nature, with anti-corruption trainings organized at numerous institutions. In partnership with our European partners, we held “Schools of Anticorruption” for the young generation. Also, I'd like to emphasize that the implementation of the Anticorruption Strategy continues to be a priority for the Center, serving as a guide in its work. In my opinion, the phenomenon can be reduced not only by making arrests. The government needs to employ functional mechanisms of system self-cleansing, mechanisms that can ensure the integrity of public employees and secure confidence among the people. In this context, the Center can make its contribution by verifying the wealth of judges, sanctioning cases of conflicts of interest and, of course, preventing and combating corruption and related offenses. When these mechanisms become functional, we will be able to have solid systems that are correct and credible for the people. One thing is certain, the Center's performance should be rated by the people, who are the beneficiaries of our anti-corruption efforts. [ – “In Moldova corruption is rampant”. This is an axiom that everybody is using, from the opposition, to the government, civil society, European officials, businessmen, to ordinary people. What are the roots of this scourge that affects us all, is it the government, the poverty, traditional behaviors, a low level of general culture, underdeveloped state institutions, or something else?] – The causes and the conditions for the appearance and endurance of corruption are various, we can talk about factors of cultural, economic, social or any other nature. The fact is that we inherited this scourge. However, I think the most important element that favors the growth of corruption is the lack of political will. Political will is able to crate conditions for enhancing the reputation of the public office, for example, by establishing some stiff criteria at employment as well as by offering a decent remuneration for work. Also, a firm political will establishes criteria of responsibility and integrity for public functionaries. The fact is that political will has enough levers to institutionalize mechanisms for fighting corruption, but it's us the people who are directly responsible for their efficiency, by showing a proactive attitude. As for the level of political will in our country, the pace of the justice and law enforcement reform inspires hope. [ – In China, for example, authorities go as far as to use capital punishment against corrupt officials. What does make you think that Moldova will be able to solve this problem using less radical means?] – In my opinion, the most effective instrument to combat corruption is not to allow corrupt people to ever hold a public office again. So, immediately after a case of corruption is discovered, steps must be taken so that the person who engaged in such behavior is never able to have access to a position of authority. This is why we instituted the integrity mechanisms, which are necessary for all the public authorities. By the way, you may have heard about bills proposed by the Ministry of Justice, proposals to which I also contributed and which are to be put up for public debates and then forwarded to Parliament. They aim to institute integrity mechanisms for all the public servants and we very much hope that these will enable a purification of the system, which hopefully will increase the people's confidence in the state authorities. [ – Let me ask you point-blank: was the CCCEC used in 2012 as an instrument to intimidate the political and business rivals of those who represent the government today, as they say it had been used by the previous government? What guarantees are there that the Anticorruption Center won't be used for such purposes?] – The allegation that we were used as a political instrument is a wrong interpretation based on the notion that the institution was politicized. This is why the core element of the reform was to depoliticize the Center. You all had the opportunity to observe the procedure of appointing the Center's director. It was for the first time that Parliament organized a public call for applications for the job. Despite all speculations about the objectivity and correctness of the process, it was a public process and thus transparent. This is the main guarantee for the Center's independence. Besides, there are other procedures and control mechanisms to supervise the Center's work, like monitoring by the specialized parliamentary commission, the Civil Council, and the Anticorruption Center's Board, which includes civil society representatives. The specialized parliamentary commission also delegated a member to the Board, and this is a member of the opposition. I think these guarantees are more than enough. [ – Corruption affects not only the present life but also the opportunities of tomorrow. Without curbing it, we can't hope to join the European Union someday, with all the benefits that such an integration would bring. It seems that the Europeans put considerable pressure on the Moldovan authorities to make them fight corruption. When do you think we will be eligible for the EU membership in terms of corruption?] – It's not my job to talk about Moldova's eligibility for EU membership, because this doesn't fall in my functions. As regards the Europeans' opinion about corruption in our country, I'd like to emphasize that combating corruption should be our number one priority, not of the Europeans, irrespective of membership aspirations. This is a job for us to do, through concerted efforts, through an adequate attitude and constructive efforts to change things for the better. [Elena Nistor, Info-Prim Neo]