Florian Coldea says that the head of DNA aims to turn his corruption file into a “trophy”. What accusations bring to chief prosecutor Marius Voineag

Florian Coldea, former first deputy chief of the SRI, accuses DNA chief prosecutor, Marius Voineag, of seeking to turn “Coldea File” “in a”trophy” and in a “shield, to invoke as a protection for maintaining the function and as a justification for the renewal of the mandate, the current being at the end ”.

Florian Coldea was sent to the DNA. Photo Inquam/Saul Pop

“In the context in which the file represented a true witch hunt, in which the factual truth was not to be followed, but the demonstration of something that does not exist, the so-called” parallel state “, to which the DNA chief prosecutor seems to be reported, I can understand why it considers it” a difficult file “”, Says Coldea, in a statement sent G4media.

Reaction to the recent statements made by the DNA chief

The attack comes at more than a month after the former deputy SRI Florian Coldea was sent to court, in a file of influence and money laundering, instrumented by DNA. The prosecutor who sent Florian Coldea and Dumitru Dumbravǎ (former SRI chief) in judgment wrote in the indictment that they would have monitored several people, including lawyers and magistrates, and two days ago, the head of DNA, Marius Voineag, said, in an interview with Aleph News, that “It was a very difficult file to investigate” But that “It's a much wider case”, Being a first referral.

“Mr. Voineag tries to throw a curtain of smoke”

Here's what the former first deputy of the SRI chief argues, in the communication transmitted G4Media:

I found with surprise that the chief prosecutor of the DNA, as a representative of one of the most important institutions of the Romanian state, recently formulated, within an interview, statements of a special severity. First of all, in his defense, he associates the DNA instrumentation of a file that Mr. Voineag personalizes as the “Coldea file” with the appearance in the public space of the results of journalistic investigations, which he considers to be “pressures” and “attacks” to which he would have been subjected to the context of administering the file.

Secondly, the chief prosecutor of the DNA makes public statements regarding the file, although, at this moment, there are requests of the defense, which are addressed to them and which have not been solved, violating both the spirit and the letter of the law. I find that, through the statements made, Mr. Voineag tries to throw a smoke curtain to cover and discredited investigations conducted by journalists with a reputation, regarding several business / real estate acquisitions he has made from a developer with whom he has close links, respectively his involvement in ranking the corruption file on behalf of a politician. Similarly, it aims to minimize the criticisms formulated by politicians to it and the efficiency of DNA activity in its mandate.

Also, it is obvious the test of Mr. Voineag to transform what he calls the “Coldea file” into a trophy and at the same time into a shield, which he will invoke as a protection for maintaining the position and as a justification for the renewal of the mandate, the current being in the end.

On the other hand, I noticed, at the same time, the fact that the DNA chief prosecutor assumes both the way the file was investigated by the case prosecutor, as well as the sending to the court, invoking “good faith”, “objectivity” and “maximum professionalism” with which DNA acted in this “difficult file”.

The respective statements are at least dismaying under the conditions in which I presented, several times, to the chief prosecutor of the DNA evidence and arguments regarding the lack of impartiality of the case prosecutor, through the resentment and abusive attitude, against the background of the personal and institutional interactions of the past, and through the procedural deviations, with the serious damage. Thus, Mrs. Chief of the Section of Mihaiela Iorga Moraru, repeatedly and deliberately, excluded evidence in favor of defense, manipulated and, even forged evidence-the change with bad faith of the audio files and the induction, thus, in error of the judges, has constantly provided to the press, etc.

In the context in which the file represented a true witch hunt, in which it was not to establish the factual truth, but to demonstrate something that does not exist, the so-called “parallel state”, to which the DNA chief prosecutor seems to be reported, I can understand why it considers it “a difficult file”.

Relevant to the “good faith” and the “objectivity” with which Mr. Voineag claims that the file has been instrumented is also the case of the case prosecutor to personally take my complaint against the whistleblower and not to take any request for several months to investigate the facts I invoked, subsequently deciding the case.

Unlike the complaint of a reserve general of the Romanian Army, with a career and results recognized internally and internationally in the defense of Romania's interests, the complaint filed against me by a person convicted in the first instance and charged in another file, supported by the co-interest, who was in the statements and indicated the lack of suspicion.

Last but not least, I highlight and reiterate again, with reference to the accusations invoked by the chief prosecutor of the DNA, that, under no circumstances, both as a military and as a civil employee of the SRI, I did not believe that I have or I am willing to exercise any influence, I did not promise or undertake any illicit action, which is very ill. DNA before being made available to the defense – in which there is no evidence indicating this worku. ”