Why can the institution’s approach be different from people’s expectations? What it is all about the fuss around the disclosures before any elections? Why should the civic courage be appreciated, protected and supported in society? Why should you fight for what the Constitution guarantees? These and other themes were discussed in an interview given by lawyer Cristina Țărnă, expert in corruption fighting and ex-vice director of the National Anticorruption Center (NAC), to Iurie Vition, of IPN.
---
IPN: Dear Missis Cristina Țărnă, in the field of corruption fighting you could see things both from the position of civil society, which formulates people’ expectations in the field, which is the most important thing, and as the vice director of the NAC that was empowered to identify those who generate injustice and unfairness.
C.Ț.- I served as vice director responsible for the prevention of corruption. The prevention represents about 10% of the National Anticorruption Center’s preoccupations, but I think that at policy level we managed to influence more than 10%. I repeat, I didn’t have powers to fight corruption, which is what society expects the most. The people expect those who are corrupt to be jailed and justice to be done by recovering the stolen funds and by holding those to blame accountable.
Together with my team, we managed to change the whole legal framework on anticorruption: the law on integrity, a new national anticorruption strategy. The Crime Assets Recovery Agency was created and this has yearly sequestrated property worth billions of lei. But this is not enough and this money should be confiscated.
IPN: Much less is now done to disseminate the results. The system is rather closed.
C.Ț.: I think I have an explanation for this. The National Anticorruption Center is an institution that should be independent and should not depend on the political agenda. This would happen in an ideal world. But an anticorruption institution should have very firm guarantees that it will be allowed to work even if it bothers the political class. When there is no serious division inside the government, the NAC adjusts itself to the demands of the power and becomes less visible.
Corruption is the sin of those who rule. When those who rule have great power, the NAC avoids to create problems to itself and this has always been a big disappointment.
IPN: It happens so not only in our country...
The election campaigns are another big problem of the institutions of this kind. The anticorruption agencies become more active right before the elections so as to create “a heroic background” to the rulers and to look for sins either in the former governments or in the opposition, but less in the government. Immediately after the elections, they keep silent again. It happens as in the case of electoral promises. They are big before the elections and contract after the elections. A number of national bodies of which the people have expectations adjust themselves to the political factor. When a different approach was adopted, problems were created to the chief of the institution and all the inferiors also suffered the consequences.
IPN: What is the way out?
C.Ț. There are two solutions here. The first solution is to have politicians with sufficient uprightness who can resist the ongoing investigations, would not become involved and would not attack the law enforcement agencies when they do their job. The second important factor is the internal courage and resistance that should come from these institutions, first of all from the top person who manages them because the others are behind this person. The dissemination of the achievements is also important as it is not enough to only do one’s job.
One should be able to speak about this as only this way public support can be obtained and protection from political influence is built simultaneously because it will be very hard for a politician to attack an anticorruption institution when this enjoys public support. This is what happened in Romania with the National Anticorruption Directorate. A lot of people in time attacked not only Laura Codruta Covesi, but also Daniel Morari before her. Not only once society defended them by making common cause with them even at international level. It should be noted that this thing cannot be asked and offered. It goes to the authority you build and deserve: the people start to trust you, to support you and you build a protection shield.
IPN: During the pandemic, attempts were made to limit the access to information. There were widened the grounds for examining the approach. A court decision was then taken, which equals the journalistic interest and petition.
C.Ț.: Discussions were held as to the validity of the law on access to information, but in connection not with the pandemic, but with the coming into force of the new Administrative Code. The law continues to be in force.
IPN: But the practice of not answering the phones, of providing information over the phone continues. A lot of things are refused and the coverage and level of perceiving the problem decline.
C.Ț.: The NAC was the most loved only when it was heard not much about what they did, when they did almost nothing or didn’t speak about what they did. What is the weapon of corruption? Bribery. When the salaries of the NAC employees were raised, this was done in parallel with a number of risks: the lifestyle was monitored, the integrity was tested, the psychological testing, the polygraph were used. So, a series of instruments were introduced so that they were concerned that they could lose an impotent social status at a certain moment.
The NAC is an elite police institution that should deliver results. Everyone should remember and demand that the results be communicated. I think there should also be political courage and also institutional courage. If you are not lucky to have both of them simultaneously, things will not develop.
IPN: I think the selective application of the law in different areas is that daily element that discourages the ordinary people.
C.Ț.: It’s the tragedy of the Republic of Moldova. The citizens want to see the corrupt officials are really punished, with jail terms, with heavy fines, with confiscation. And it’s logic. Distrust appears when a politician or a businessman convicted for causing damage of tens or hundreds or millions or even billions gets a punishment similar to that of a mother who stole 5,000 lei to feed her children. There are people who are constrained by the situation, but they cannot afford six lawyers or lawyers who cost millions of dollars. But justice is milder and more indulgent to those who afford something like this and this generates distrust.
The judges have a very wide discretion margin in implementing the law and what I tried to do in 2013 was to show that facing such a big problem as corruption in the Republic of Moldova, we have a very mild approach to corrupt persons on the part of judges. I analyzed things yearly and the figures improved. But in 2019 they dropped and we fell to a level lower than in 2012… The source of income is the first thing that should be considered when speaking about a corrupt functionary. This should be dismissed and, depending on the situation, should be jailed. This should be punished financially and banned access to the post as this is what counts the most for this person. In 2010-2012, about 67% returned to the post after being convicted for corruption. Later, two in three didn’t return to the post. Now, only one in four does not return to the post.
IPN: You said you are an optimistic person and hope should be fueled by very concrete things such as the uprightness of the persons that implement…
C.Ț.: I think that people with courage must come. It is not possible to speak about politics and corruption fighting as about separate processes as long as the NAC director or the prosecutor general are named with the involvement of the political factor. At political level and at the level of persons who are named as managers of these institutions, when having good institutions with proper instruments, laws, a budget, nothing or almost nothing will be done to meet people’s expectations. The parliamentary majority should have enough courage and integrity to name not loyal persons, but persons who deserve...
IPN: Have you left with the feeling of an accomplished mission?
C.Ț.: I left the post of vice director with the feeling of a job done well. But I think I could have done more if I hadn’t spent about 80% of my time fighting corruption. Whenever you want to do something, obstacles are placed on your path. If you promote a law, this law is modified, is declared unconstitutional or is annulled. Moves that paralyze the efforts are made.
IPN: Institutions cooperated to create conditions for stealing the billion…
C.Ț.: I was dealing with politics and prevention of corruption. I was permanently hampered and I was trying to speak about those obstacles, being always sincere. There are professionals, people who know, can and want to do something in the Anticorruption Prosecutor’s Office, but they should be allowed to do their job. When this happens, a miracle will be worked in our country too….
IPN: What do we need for the purpose?
C.Ț.: At practical level, we have everything we want: institutions and laws. If we ask the people how we can fight corruption, most of them will say: “Ask them where did they take the luxury cars and castles from and if they cannot answer, these should be taken away from them.” This is a simple and wise approach.
IPN: The institution should do its job…
C.Ț.: The problem actually residues in the Constitution, which presumes that the property was obtained legally. So, it is the duty of the state bodies to prove that this was stolen or was gotten illegally. It is impossible to prove bribery with journalistic filming.
The practice of the states that achieved results in fighting corruption and where the presumption of legality of property in relation to functionaries does not exist should be borrowed by Moldova. This is a good practice in relation to the ordinary citizens for protecting the property of those who worked, of the ordinary people, not of functionaries. I think this presumption should not function absolutely for everyone. It should protect the ordinary people, not the functionaries. The same provision exists in the Constitution of Romania and the Constitutional Court held that differentiated implementation of the presumption concerning the gained property is possible. In our country, this is not possible.
IPN:…and we have a reality, while they have another reality.
C.Ț.: I think this is what we miss. The modification of the interpretation of the Constitution’s article concerning the presumption of legality of property is an important element in the fight against corruption. Even without such an instrument, but with courage, much more would be done. Nothing happens without courage. The human factor counts - who leads us at country level and at the level of law enforcement.
---
The interview was produced in the framework of IPN News Agency’s project “Injustice Revealed through Multimedia”. The video variant can be seen here.
