Ilie Bolojan, accused of hypocrisy. In 2007 would have received the equivalent of 71 average salaries from Eximbank
Prime Minister Ilie Bolojan is accused by government trade unionists of collecting money from Eximbank, although he publicly claimed to have never benefited from “Sinecuri” And he harshly criticized the remuneration granted in the board of directors, especially at Eximbank.
Bolojan is accused of double standard. Photo: Inquam Photos / Octav Ganea
According to a 2007 wealth statement, Bolojan would have received 73,935 lei as a member of the Inter -ministerial Committee for Financing, Guarantees and Insurance (CIFA) of Eximbank, an amount equivalent to 71 net average salaries that year.
“At an average monthly net salary of 1,042 lei in that year, this amount is equivalent to 71 monthly average salaries, that is, a considerable income, which is perfectly in the definition of a sine.” according to the union.
In an official statement, the Government confirms that Ilie Bolojan was, in 2007, general secretary of the government, and its function automatically involves the quality of CIFGA. The authorities specify that this position was assumed, with concrete responsibilities, and cannot be considered a sinecure.
“We specify that what really matters in a public office is what you do as long as you occupy, in relation to the remuneration received. This makes the difference between a sinecure and an assumed responsibility,” transmits the Government in a clarification for Antena 3 CNN.
The union's accusations
The union claims that Bolojan, while promoting austerity measures and criticizes the public system, forgets to assume their own past.
“The statements of the prime minister, which condemns exactly the type of functions and benefits that he has personally held in the past, expose a discrepancy between reality and rhetoric.” shows the representatives of the union.
They recall that the function of CIFa member was remunerated and that Bolojan would have benefited from considerable incomes in that context, while now criticizing exactly the kind of remuneration from the Board of Directors.
