Input Paper “Overview of the current situation and challenges of the fight against corruption in the Republic of Moldova”

Foto: Shutter­stock, Alexey Struyskiy

As part of our project “Eastern Partnership Plus”, we are publishing a first series of input papers on the topic of anti-corruption reforms in Ukraine, Georgia and Moldova. The authors from the region (Kateryna Ryzhenko, Ion Guzun, Sandro Kevkhishvili) analyse the role of the European Union in supporting the fight against corruption and formulate their political recom­men­da­tions for decision-makers in Berlin and Brussels.

By Ion Guzun, Attorney at Law

Overview of the current situation and challenges of the fight against corruption 

On 8 June 2019, Moldova’s Parliament adopted a decla­ration recog­nizing that the state had been captured by the oligarch Vladimir Plahotniuc and the Democ­ratic Party of Moldova (PDM) under his leadership. That same day, the two parties of the ACUM Bloc and the Party of the Socialists entered into an unlikely agreement to form a new coalition government with ACUM’s Maia Sandhu as prime minister. The newly estab­lished government undertook to inves­tigate corruption schemes and illicit financial flows, fight corruption and reform the judiciary. Feeling threatened by the revolu­tionary measures taken by the Sandu Government to remove political influence from the judiciary and Prose­cutor General’s Office, the PSRM toppled the government five months after its appointment. The succeeding PSRM-led coalition government under Ion Chicu stalled the judicial reforms and the anti-corruption measures, while the Socialists focused on re-building the Plahotniuc style power vertical.

The appointment of a new Prose­cutor General in November 2019 did not bring the expected break­through in the inves­ti­gation of high-profile corruption cases, such as the banking fraud and Laundromat money-laundering scheme. On the contrary, the Prose­cutor General’s Office released from prison or freed from criminal inves­ti­gation multiple individuals involved in money laundering and the billion-dollar banking fraud, among them the contro­versial businessman Veaceslav Platon, two Shor Party MPs who figure in the Kroll reports[1] and Vlad Filat,[2] the former prime minister. The Prose­cutor General’s Office refused to launch an official inves­ti­gation into the alleged bribery of then President Igor Dodon, even after a video leaked in the summer of 2020 showing Igor Dodon taking a plastic bag from the oligarch Vladimir Plahotniuc in 2019 had gone viral.[3] Another inves­ti­gation into bribery among MPs launched in 2020 has been also stalled.

Although Moldova has made some progress, such as amend­ments to the legis­lation on sanctions of criminal offenses and improving policy documents and proce­dures on money laundering, these achieve­ments were made possible largely thanks to the external pressure exerted via the condi­tion­ality mechanism attached to the EU macro-financial assis­tance, and far less due the existence of any genuine political will on the part of the incumbent government. No progress has yet been made towards strength­ening the anti-corruption insti­tu­tions by narrowing the compe­tences (and thus sharp­ening the focus) of the specialized Anti-corruption Prosecutor’s Office (APO).

Anti-corruption reforms: main achievement and failures 

Moldova has adopted a string of various anti-corruption strategies and action plans since gaining its indepen­dence. The latest National Integrity and Anticor­ruption Strategy expired in 2020, but only 50 (39%) of its 127 measures had been imple­mented by mid-2020, though another 20% had been partially imple­mented.[4]

The latest Strategy and the Action Plan for ensuring the indepen­dence and the integrity of the justice sector for 2021–2024, adopted by the PSRM-Sor Party coalition in late 2020, was due to go into effect as of 1 January 2021. On 17 February 2021, President Maia Sandu returned the justice sector strategy to the Parliament for further review, requesting the imple­men­tation of the mechanism of the external evalu­ation of judges, that the assets and interest disclo­sures submitted by judges and prose­cutors be subject to effective review and that the Consti­tution be amended to allow for the confis­cation of assets/​ wealth owned by public servants in the absence of justi­fi­cation. Parliament did not re-examine the justice sector strategy before 28 April 2021 (when the presi­dential decree dissolving parliament was signed).

The verifi­cation of asset reporting is proceeding very slowly, and priority seems to be given to conflicts of interest, which are of less complexity. Unfor­tu­nately, the integrity inspectors perform only super­ficial checks on the asset and interest state­ments submitted, limiting these only to form and content and do not compile all the infor­mation from previous years or inves­tigate discrep­ancies revealed in this way. As of the time of writing, of 11 inves­ti­ga­tions initiated to check assets, four cases citing the unjus­tified property have been sent to court. The National Integrity Authority (NIA) needs to amend the rules governing the verifi­cation of asset and interest state­ments, ensure their effective imple­men­tation with respect to the disclo­sures of all high-level actors and ensure the timely publi­cation of results of these investigations.

Since 2016, the e‑integrity system has been available for online filing and verifi­cation of asset and interest state­ments. Automated cross-checking is extremely important for the effective verifi­cation of such state­ments. NIA failed to implement this mechanism, although the donor community has expressed its readiness to support the improvement thereof, subject to a prior audit of its functioning.

Amend­ments to the Criminal Code tough­ening the sanctions for corruption offenses entered into force in October 2020. The new legal framework, aimed at combatting corruption by improving effec­tiveness in the criminal inves­ti­gation phase, will provide for the possi­bility of criminal prose­cution bodies with additional proce­dural tools. Also, the term of impris­onment for corruption has been increased to 8 years.

The Anti-corruption Prosecutor’s Office (APO) of the Republic of Moldova was created to fight high-level corruption. However, it devotes signif­icant efforts to cases involving small-scale corruption. Thus, restricting the mandate of the APO to cases of high-level corruption would help its prose­cutors to focus on the cases of high-level corruption; such inves­ti­ga­tions require increased guarantees of indepen­dence as well as special methods and means of inves­ti­gation due to the complexity of the cases and interests involved. Such a mandate justifies the mainte­nance of a specialized body with a special status.[5]

In 2020, no high-ranking Moldovan officials were sentenced for corruption. On the contrary, judges postponed signif­icant cases or released suspects under inves­ti­gation, and prose­cutors have been stalling with respect to the proper inves­ti­gation of substan­tiated allega­tions of corruption. For instance, Oleg Stern­ioală, a Supreme Court Judge, was detained in November 2019 in a criminal inves­ti­gation on suspicion of large-scale money laundering and illicit enrichment to the tune of about EUR 320,000, the discrepancy between the suspect’s income and his expen­di­tures. More than a year later, the case has still not been sent to court. Mr. Stern­ioală resigned from the court, but is a practicing attorney. In June 2020, the Chișinău Appellate Court issued an order to cease criminal proceedings against two individuals caught in flagrante delicto trying to send, through third-parties, USD 250,000 to members of parliament in March 2014. This was the first case involving high-level corruption of MPs.

In September 2019, the APO withdrew the charges against 14 former and current judges accused of money laundering in the “Laundromat” case, on the grounds that the elements of the offense could not be estab­lished. In late October 2020, the Superior Council of Magis­tracy accepted the requests of five magis­trates to be reinstated in the positions they had held until 2016, when they became subjects of criminal prose­cution, and ordered that they receive back pay for the period in which they were suspended from acting as judge.

The draft amend­ments which would provide for an extension the anticor­ruption strategy until 2022 are still awaiting a decision by Parliament. Based on judicial statistics, the National Anticor­ruption Centre, NAC claims that the courts issue sentences involving “real” impris­onment in no more than 16% of all corruption cases, and issue fines in 71% of them.[6]

The EU’s role in supporting the fight against corruption

The fight against corruption has been a constant priority in the EU-Moldova dialogue and consti­tutes an important part of the EU-Moldova Associ­ation Agreement (AA), signed in 2014. The two Associ­ation Agendas produced by the Associ­ation Agreement set out a clear area of actions in the field of rule of law, among them the compre­hensive reform of the prose­cution and the justice sector, actions to advance the fight against corruption, especially high-level corruption, and to strengthen the indepen­dence and function­ality of the existing anti-corruption insti­tu­tions (the National Anticor­ruption Centre and the NIA). The second Associ­ation Agenda for 2017–2019,[7] which was approved after the one-billion banking theft came to light, defined a more extensive and detailed list of anti-corruption and anti-money laundering measures.

Before 2018, the European Union had not allocated funding to support rule-of-law measures within the framework of the European Neigh­bourhood Instrument (ENI). The first ENI-funded programme aimed at strength­ening the rule of law and anti-corruption mecha­nisms was launched in 2018,[8] with a budget of EUR 8.5 million.

In December 2020, The European Commission approved the disbursement of EUR 5 million in budget support assis­tance to help the delivery of reforms in the police sector in the Republic of Moldova. This new payment comes in the wake of the second instalment of the now expired Macro-Financial Assis­tance programme in July (EUR 30 million), and the first instalment (EUR 50 million) of the emergency Macro-Financial Assis­tance programme, disbursed in November.[9] It encom­passes important anti-corruption and anti-money laundering compo­nents vis-à-vis the Ministry of Interior and the police.[10]

The Joint EU/​CoE Project Controlling Corruption through Law Enforcement and Prevention (CLEP) started on 1 June 2017, with a duration of 36 months and a budge of EUR 2.2 million.[11] In addition, the EU initiated a million-euro Twinning project with the NAC in September 2017, aimed at strength­ening the insti­tu­tional capac­ities of the NAC, APO, Ministry of Internal Affairs (MIA), General Police Inspec­torate (GPI) and Customs Service, and thus increasing their effec­tiveness in the fight against corruption.[12]

The current High Level Advisor’s Mission provides expertise on combatting corruption and money laundering. This is not the only support that the European Union, the Council of Europe, and the other donors provide to assist Moldova in the fight against corruption and money laundering.

Main conclusion and recom­men­da­tions as to how the EU could effec­tively support anti-corruption reforms 

 Conclu­sions

  • The EU condi­tion­ality mechanism has been a key impetus for all of the anti-corruption and judicial reforms imple­mented by the Moldovan government in recent years.
  • The assets verifi­cation mechanism and fight against high-level corruption remains ineffective, targeting mostly the low-level public servants and conflicts of interests. The existing legal short­comings make the inves­ti­gation of illegal enrichment a challenging task.

Recom­men­da­tions

(1) with respect to the Eastern Partnership framework (Associ­ation countries)

  • Enhance cooper­ation between the law enforcement and anti-corruption agencies of the EU , including the European Public Prosecutor’s Office, and the EaPs in the areas of combatting high-level corruption, controls of foreign assets of high-ranking public officials, the recovery of crimi­nally acquired assets and combatting financial crime.
  • Extend the scope of the Global Human Rights Sanctions Regime (EU ‘Magnitsky Act’) to include individuals involved in high-level corruption cases in the EaP countries.
  • Continue to define the rule of law and the fight against corruption as key criteria and condi­tions for closer political partnership and financial assis­tance to the EaP countries.
  • Continue to provide civil society with capacity support and funding to support monitoring the trans­parency, integrity, and effec­tiveness of state insti­tu­tions in imple­menting anti-corruption and judicial reforms.

(2) with respect to the Republic of Moldova specifically

  • Strengthen the capacity of the APO and NIA to handle high-level corruption cases and the compe­tencies of the NIA to carry out effective controls of assets and interest statements.

[1] Ziarul de Gardă, 2 October 2020, “Tauber and Apostolova freed from criminal prose­cution in the banking fraud case”, https://bit.ly/2SlS0OZ.

[2] Radio Free Europe, 4 December 2019, “Former Moldovan PM convicted of bribery released from prison”, https://www.rferl.org/a/former-moldovan-pm-convicted-of-bribery-released-from-prison/30306678.html.

[3] Ziarul de Gardă, 23 June 2020, “The Anticor­ruption Prosecutor’s Office concluded the inves­ti­gation regarding the b[l]ack plastic bag”, https://www.zdg.md/en/?p=3722.

[4] National Anticor­ruption Center, Monitoring Report on imple­men­tation NIA Strategy for the semester I, 2020, https://cna.gov.md/public/files/Raport_SNIA__sem_I_2020_.pdf.

[5] The Legal Resources Centre from Moldova, The Anti-Corruption Prose­cution office should inves­tigate only high-level corruption, available at https://crjm.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/2018–11-Nota-Competentele-PA-fin_eng.pdf.

[6] National Anticor­ruption Centre, The study on court sentences for corruption offenses. Specialized courts /​ panels. Inter­na­tional practices and recom­men­da­tions for the Republic of Moldova, available in Romanian at https://bit.ly/3csMjFR.

[7] https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A22017D1489.

[8] https://ec.europa.eu/neighbourhood-enlargement/sites/near/files/annex_3_clean_anti_corruption_final.pdf.

[9] Moldova: EU approves €5 million in support of police sector reform — https://bit.ly/2Tasblf.

[10] https://www.eu4moldova.md/en/content/support-police-reform-republic-moldova.

[11] Council of Europe, Project on Controlling Corruption through Law Enforcement and Prevention, available at https://www.coe.int/en/web/corruption/completed-projects/clep.

[12] Twinning Project “Support to the strength­ening of the opera­tional capac­ities of the Law Enforcement Agencies of the Republic of Moldova in the field of prevention and inves­ti­gation of criminal acts of corruption”, available at https://bit.ly/3cpT3EG.


Ion Guzun, Attorney at Law

Gefördert durch:

 

 Textende

Did you like thike this article? If yes, you can support the independent editorial work and journalism of LibMod via a simple donation tool.

We are recog­nized as a non-profit organi­zation, accord­ingly donations are tax deductible. For a donation receipt (necessary for an amount over 200 EUR), please send your address data to finanzen@libmod.de

Related topics

Newsletter bestellen

Stay tuned with our regular newsletter about all our relevant subjects.

Mit unseren Daten­schutzbes­tim­mungen
erklären Sie sich einverstanden.