Expert Igor Boțan said the investigation of the bank fraud has a political dimension and this subject was included in the electoral programs of politicians and of those who aspired to the post of prosecutor general. It would be strange if the politicians didn’t try to use this theme as it is long-lasing and draws public attention. That’s why political interest appeared and the politicians’ involvement brings more or less credibility to particular new actions taken by the law enforcement bodies. The statements were made in a public debate titled “Why was bank theft brought back into focus?”, which was staged by IPN News Agency.
Igor Boțan, standing expert of IPN’s project, said the First Kroll Report was published at the start of May 2015 by the then Speaker of Parliament Andrian Candu. Shortly afterward, a special sitting of the legislature was convened and this involved the governor of the National Bank, the prosecutor general, the head of the Security and Intelligence Service and the chief of the National Anticorruption Center. Society learned “very interesting” things then, namely that the law enforcement agencies knew the whole information about the bank fraud. Then, the chief of the National Anticorruption Center said the Kroll report was belles letters as the investigators of Kroll received in Chisinau all the documents needed for compiling that report.
“In May 2015, the heads of two most important law enforcement and regulatory agencies, which were to ensure financial security in the Republic of Moldova, openly said that they knew everything and investigated everything and offered Kroll comprehensive information. “The question is thus, why didn’t the competent bodies intervene to interrupt the theft? The answer was that the President, Parliament Speaker, Premier were informed about the bank theft. This shows that political elements have been involved from the very beginning,” explained Igor Boțan.
He reminded that he raised the subject of appointments at and politicization of law enforcement and regulatory institutions in 2011 first. As a result of this politicization, the political class co-participated. In a news conference earlier this year, Mister Shor said that no one asked the state to intervene to save the banks as they, the bankers, give, take, perform transactions. The politicians decided that three banks ran the risk of becoming insolvent and decided to save those banks by taking money from the National Bank under state guarantee. They bore no blame.
Igor Boțan noted the investigation of the bank fraud was also discussed in the protests as a result of which, under the pressure of circumstances, a part of the protesters became politicians and what happened in those protests became the political agenda of those who now say it openly, and are supported by a large part of society, that they want to resolve the bank fraud and the problem of depoliticization of the law enforcement and regulatory agencies. When taking up, Prosecutor General Alexandr Stoianoglo also said that he intended to investigate resonant crimes, including the bank theft. In half a year of his appointment, the prospector general raised again this subject of interest.
The expert stated the problem of recovery of the stolen funds remains open and thus draws public attention and political interest appears as a result as the bank fraud subject seems to be a very long-lasting one.
The debate “Why was bank theft brought back into focus?” was the 136th edition of the series of debates “Developing political culture through public debates” that is supported by the Hanns Seidel Foundation.
