Nimeni nu este mai presus de lege

„Nimeni nu este mai presus de lege”, nici chiar Mugur Isărescu! Posted by justitiarul on 7 februarie 2018 Nr. 3163 București, 6 ianuarie 2018 „NIMENI NU ESTE MAI PRESUS DE LEGE”, nici chiar dl Mugur […] Nr. 3163 București, 6 ianuarie 2018 „NIMENI NU ESTE MAI PRESUS DE LEGE”, nici chiar dl Mugur ISĂRESCU! GUVERNUL ROMÂNIEI Doamnei Viorica DĂNCILĂ Primul Ministru al României Stimată doamnă prim-ministru, Nonșalanța batjocoritoare cu care dl Mugur ISĂRESCU, guvernatorul Băncii Naționale a României, tratează de mulți ani obligațiile sale legale privind implicarea instituției conduse de Domnia Sa în falimentarea premeditată a Băncii Internaționale a Religiilor ne determină să supunem atenției Guvernului României comportamentul obstrucționist al dlui Mugur ISĂRESCU față de necesitatea de a respecta obligațiile care îi sunt impuse de prevederile legale în vigoare, așa cum este – de exemplu – art. 291 Cod pr.pen., care precizează că: „Orice persoană cu funcție de conducere în cadrul unei autorități a administrației publice…, care, în exercitarea atribuțiilor lor, au luat cunoștință de săvârșirea unei infracțiuni pentru care acțiunea penală se pune în mișcare din oficiu, sunt obligate să sesizeze de îndată organul de urmărire penală…”. Dl Mugur ISĂRESCU refuză cu obstinație să respecte această OBLIGAȚIE LEGALĂ, bizuindu-se pe Legea nr. 312/28.06.04 privind Statutul BNR, care nici la art. 34 privind atribuțiile guvernatorului BNR și nici la alte articole nu prevede nicio obligație a guvernatorului BNR de a respecta dispozițiile legale, de a fi tras la răspundere pentru comiterea vreunei abateri de natură penală, așa cum este – de exemplu – cea privind nerespectarea/sfidarea art. 291 Cod pr.pen. Considerăm că numai (Repetăm: NUMAI) Guvernul României poate răspunde la întrebarea pe care și-o pun public mulți, foarte mulți români, respectiv dacă Banca Națională a României ESTE STAT ÎN STAT, dacă guvernatorul BNR este legal exonerat de îndatorirea cetățenească de a respecta prevederile legale, așa cum sunt – de exemplu – cele la care ne referim prin scrisoarea nr. 2991/08.07.2017 (anexa) – tăinuirea unor infracțiuni prevăzute: a.- de art. 258 alin. 1 Cod pen. – uzurpare de calități oficiale și b.- de art. 269 alin. 1 Cod pen. – favorizarea făptuitorului. Din motive cunoscute numai de Domnia Sa, dl Mugur ISĂRESCU refuză de mulți ani să recunoască public/să sesizeze organul de urmărire penală (art. 291 Cod pr.pen.) că dl Emil Ioța GHIZARI nu a fost numit niciodată (Repetăm: NICIODATĂ) de către Parlamentul României în calitatea de guvernator al BNR și că dl Emil Ioța GHIZARI a semnat – PRIN UZURPARE DE CALITĂȚI OFICIALE (art. 258 alin. 1 Cod pen.) – acte oficiale ale BNR, inclusiv bancnote, într-o calitate (GUVERNATOR AL BNR) care nu i-a fost atribuită legal de către Parlamentul României, ceea ce implică, în conformitate cu prevederile legale, nulitatea absolută a tuturor documentelor/înscrisurilor semnate de dl Emil Ioța GHIZARI în calitatea de guvernator al BNR. Comportamentul duplicitar al dlui Mugur ISĂRESCU în această problemă este dovedit de următorul exemplu edificator: a.- pe de o parte – imediat după încheierea mandatului său de prim- ministru (28 decembrie 2000), dl Mugur ISĂRESCU a dispus – cu deplină justificare – anularea și retragerea din circulație a bancnotelor semnate ilegal de dl E.I.GHIZARI în calitate de Guvernator al BNR și înlocuirea acestora cu bancnote noi, semnate de guvernatorul numit OFICIAL de către Parlamentul României, dl Mugur ISĂRESCU. b.- pe de altă parte – același domn Mugur ISĂRESCU nu a schițat niciun gest privind soarta celorlalte documente/înscrisuri semnate tot ilegal de același domn E.I.GHIZARI. Bancnotele semnate ilegal de dl E.I.GHIZARI au fost – corect și justificat – anulate de dl Mugur ISĂRESCU pentru că nu aveau putere circulatorie legală (LEGAL TENDER). La fel ar fi trebuit să procedeze dl Mugur ISĂRESCU și cu toate celelalte documente/înscrisuri, care sunt nule de drept deoarece au fost semnate tot ilegal de către același domn E.I.GHIZARI, care nu a fost numit NICIODATĂ de Parlamentul României în calitatea de guvernator al BNR. ACESTA ESTE ADEVĂRATUL DOMN MUGUR ISĂRESCU ! Considerăm că numai (Repetăm: NUMAI) Guvernul României poate constata/identifica care este motivul real al încercării disperate a dlui Mugur ISĂRESCU (art. 269 alin. 1 Cod pen. – favorizarea infractorului) de a feri de rigorile legii pe dl Emil Ioța GHIZARI, de a mușamaliza consecințele devastatoare ale unora din înscrisurile semnate ilegal de dl Emil Ioța GHIZARI în calitate de guvernator al BNR, așa cum este Cererea nr. XI/G/133/29.06.2000 prin care BNR a solicitat falimentul Băncii Internaționale a Religiilor. În ceea ce ne privește, noi considerăm că dl Mugur ISĂRESCU acționează conștient în această problemă pentru că știe foarte bine: a.- că dacă se va afla ADEVĂRUL privind falimentul BIR, el personal și BNR vor fi – în mod cert – considerați vinovați pentru imensul prejudiciu cauzat prin acest faliment și b.- că anularea Cererii sus-menționate, cu consecința sa logică – instaurarea SUVERANITĂȚII LEGII în Dosarul nr. 194/P/03 privind falimentul politico-fraudulos al Băncii Internaționale a Religiilor, vor determina – inevitabil – prăbușirea prestigiului și credibilității sale pe plan intern și internațional, încheierea rușinoasă a carierei sale. Este vorba despre un ADEVĂR negat mulți ani cu vehemență de către BNR, DNA și alte autorități române. Noi am aflat acest ADEVĂR – de la un binevoitor anonim (credem că este lucrător SRI), care ne-a informat despre existența Ordonanței din 04.02.2008 (anexa) prin care DNA a recunoscut O F I C I A L că prejudiciul creat prin falimentarea BIR este de peste 400.000.000 dolari SUA. Este fără putință de tăgadă că – de fapt – dl Mugur ISĂRESCU este înspăimântat de ceea ce i s-ar putea întâmpla deoarece știe foarte bine că prejudiciul este mult mai mare. În acest sens are în vedere că, potrivit Raportului de expertiză și evaluare întocmit – în ianuarie 2005 -, la solicitarea Parlamentului României, de un expert autorizat, prejudiciul era (la sfârșitul anului 2004) de cca 500.000.000 dolari SUA. Principala concluzie a Raportului a fost următoarea: „Prin acțiunea de lichidare a Băncii Internaționale a Religiilor s-a produs acționarilor – proprietari ai patrimoniului băncii – o pagubă de 448.227.706 USD prin lipsirea acestor acționari de valoarea acțiunilor lor în sumă de 400.000.000 USD și de acumularea averilor lor din profit în sumă de 6.031.011 USD, precum și de 42.196.785 USD reprezentând profitul realizabil de care au fost lipsiți în perioada 1999-2004”. Este evident că, dacă media anuală a profitului realizabil, în perioada funcționării normale a BIR, a fost de cca 840.000 USD, în perioada 2005-2016 s-ar fi putut realiza un profit de cca 100.000.000 USD. În concluzie, prejudiciul actual al falimentului BIR ar fi de cca 600.000.000 USD – sumă care-i provoacă coșmaruri dlui Mugur ISĂRESCU ! Stimată doamnă prim-ministru, În cele ce urmează vom încerca să prezentăm – pe scurt – unele din ilegalitățile săvârșite de BNR pentru a falimenta BIR, ilegalități pe care dl Mugur ISĂRESCU refuză să le aducă la cunoștința organelor procuraturii, așa cum îl obligă art. 291 Cod pr.pen.: 1.- Prima lovitură ne-a fost dată – la 17 mai 1999 – de către dl Ovidiu GRECEA, ex-șef al AVAB, care, pe baza unor informații clasificate primite de la BNR, a anunțat, în cadrul unei emisiuni TV (art. 304 alin. 1 și 2 Cod pen. – divulgare de informații nepublice), că BIR se află într-o „stare de criză”. Dl Adrian Vasilescu, consilier al guvernatorului BNR, care se afla alături de dl Ovidiu GRECEA, în aceeași emisiune TV, nu a schițat nici cel mai palid gest dezaprobator/de a-l contrazice pe dl Ovidiu GRECEA. Afirmațiile iresponsabile ale dlui Ovidiu GRECEA și tăcerea suspecto-dubioasă a dlui Adrian Vasilescu au declanșat o justificată năvală a depunătorilor la ghișeele BIR. Consecința: banca a pierdut cca 120 miliarde ROL !? Complicitatea BNR cu dl Ovidiu GRECEA mai este confirmată și de refuzul BNR de a critica/dezminți public afirmațiile nesăbuite ale acestuia. ACEASTA A FOST PRIMA DOVADĂ A PREMEDITĂRII FALIMENTULUI BIR DE CĂTRE BNR ! 2.- A doua lovitură ne-a fost dată de către BNR prin emiterea Normei nr. 1/24.01.2000 prin care, contrar prevederii de la art. 115 al Legii nr. 58/1998 privind activitatea bancară, ne-a impus samavolnic (art. 297 alin. 1 Cod pen. – abuz în serviciu) o măsură devastatoare, respectiv a dispus „INSTITUIREA UNUI REGIM SPECIAL DE DECONTARE A OPERAȚIUNILOR DE PLĂȚI ȘI ÎNCASĂRI”. Dacă ar fi respectat prevederea de la art. 115 al Legii nr. 58/1998, BNR ar fi putut să dispună „INSTITUIREA MĂSURII DE ADMINISTRARE SPECIALĂ”, ceea ce nu corespundea însă intereselor sale de a obține falimentul băncii noastre. Instituirea ADMINISTRĂRII SPECIALE = posibilitate certă de salvare a unei bănci de la faliment ! Instituirea REGIMULUI SPECIAL DE DECONTARE = cale certă spre falimentarea unei bănci ! ACEASTA ESTE CEA DE-A DOUA DOVADĂ A PREMEDITĂRII FALIMENTULUI BIR DE CĂTRE BNR ! 3.- A treia lovitură ne-a fost dată de BNR prin Circulara nr. 6 din 28 ianuarie 2000, care, la pct. 7, prevedea ca „cesiunile de creanță efectuate de bănci în anul 1999 să fie trecute pe pierderi”. Singura bancă din sistem care efectuase – în anul 1999 – asemenea cesiuni de creanță, conforme – de altfel – prevederilor legale (Cod civil și Cod comercial), era banca noastră. Încălcând grosolan principiul constituțional al neretroactivității legilor (art. 15 alin. 2 din Constituția României), BNR a obligat ilegal BIR (art. 297 alin. 1 Cod pen. – abuz în serviciu) să aplice această Circulară retroactiv, adică pentru exercițiul financiar 1999, care tocmai se încheiase. Rezultatul: în loc ca exercițiul financiar al BIR pe anul 1999 să se încheie pe plus, acesta a consemnat o „pierdere contabilă” de 101,5 miliarde ROL !? ACEASTA ESTE CEA DE-A TREIA DOVADĂ A PREMEDITĂRII FALIMENTULUI BIR DE CĂTRE BNR ! 4.- Cea de-a patra lovitură – de această dată aproape letală – ne-a fost altoită de criminalul COMUNICAT DE PRESĂ AL BNR DIN 9 MAI 2000 prin care s-a adus la cunoștință opiniei publice – C A Z U N I C Î N L U M E – că băncii noastre i-a fost instituit un regim special de decontare a operațiunilor de plăți și încasări, așa cum se stabilise – ilegal – prin Norma BNR nr. 1/24.01.2000 !? Reacția zgomotoaso-turbulentă a depunătorilor a fost pe deplin justificată. Consecințele au fost pe placul BNR, care urmărea să ne creeze lipsa de lichidități care îi era necesară pentru a justifica solicitarea falimentului băncii noastre. AȘA A FUNCȚIONAT „SUPRAVEGHEREA PRUDENȚIALĂ” A BĂNCII NAȚIONALE A ROMÂNIEI ! Semnificativ este faptul că BNR/dl Mugur ISĂRESCU au refuzat/au lăsat fără răspuns nenumăratele noastre solicitări de a ni se comunica temeiul legal al publicării unui asemenea ruinător COMUNICAT DE PRESĂ, de a ne pune la dispoziție o copie a hotărârii prin care CA al BNR a aprobat publicarea COMUNICATULUI, batjocorind – astfel – atât drepturile noastre constituționale (Constituția României – art. 31 alin. 1 și 2 – dreptul la informație), cât și legale (Legea nr. 544/2001 privind liberul acces la informații de interes public). ACEASTA ESTE CEA DE-A PATRA – CEA MAI ELOCVENTĂ – DOVADĂ A PREMEDITĂRII FALIMENTULUI BIR DE CĂTRE BNR ! NICIO BANCĂ CENTRALĂ DIN LUME NU A RECURS/NU RECURGE LA O ASEMENEA MĂSURĂ DEVASTATOARE PENTRU ORICE BANCĂ COMERCIALĂ DE PE MAPAMOND ! 5.- În condițiile deosebit de dificile create premeditat de către BNR prin publicarea Comunicatului de presă din 9 mai 2000, BIR a fost nevoită ca, în conformitate cu prevederile art. 20 și ale art. 27 din Legea nr. 101/1998 privind Statutul BNR, să solicite BNR, la 28 aprilie 2000, un „credit punte” de 300 miliarde ROL, garantat cu active ale BIR în valoare de peste 20.000.000 USD. Cea de-a cincea lovitură ne-a fost dată de BNR prin refuzul categoric (art. 297 alin. 1 Cod pen. – abuz în serviciu) de a ne acorda creditul solicitat !? Numeroasele noastre intervenții au fost ignorate. Era evident că BNR știa că prin acordarea creditului solicitat ne-ar fi facilitat posibilitatea de a redresa situația financiară a băncii, situație creată chiar de către BNR, respectiv de a evita falimentul, ceea ce nu corespundea intereselor BNR procupată doar de creare condițiilor necesare declanșării falimentului băncii noastre. În loc să soluționeze favorabil solicitarea noastră, BNR a inițiat, pe baza unui demers întreprins încă din martie 2000 (?!), OUG nr. 118/30.06.2000 prin care Guvernul condus de dl Mugur ISĂRESCU a aprobat ca statul român să împrumute Fondul de garantare a depozitelor în sistemul bancar cu suma de 1500 miliarde ROL, care urma să fie folosită pentru plata despăgubirilor cuvenite deponenților la BIR. Vă rugăm să aveți în vedere că: a.- GUVERNUL ROMÂNIEI – condus de dl Mugur ISĂRESCU – A EMIS OUG nr. 118/30 iunie 2000, CU 10 ZILE ÎNAINTE CA TRIBUNALUL BUCUREȘTI SĂ DECLANȘEZE FALIMENTUL Băncii Internaționale a Religiilor la 10 iulie 2000 !? b.- Dl Mugur ISĂRESCU, fiind conștient că OUG nr. 118 este un document suspecto-dubios, a evitat duplicitar orice răspundere, încredințând semnarea documentului unui membru al guvernului !? CUM O FI FOST OARE POSIBIL CA domnul Mugur ISĂRESCU SĂ ȘTIE – la 30 iunie 2000 – CĂ TRIBUNALUL BUCUREȘTI VA PRONUNȚA – la 10 iulie 2000 – (adică peste 10 zile) FALIMENTUL BĂNCII NOASTRE !? ACEASTA ESTE CEA DE-A CINCEA DOVADĂ EVIDENTĂ A PREMEDITĂRII FALIMENTULUI BIR DE CĂTRE BNR, CU COMPLICITATEA GUVERNULUI CONDUS DE dl Mugur ISĂRESCU !? 6.- Cea de-a șasea lovitură – cea mai năpraznică – ne-a fost „oferită” de BNR (art. 321 alin. 1 – Falsul intelectual – și art. 297 alin. 1 – Abuzul în serviciu – Cod pen.) prin afirmația mincinoasă pe baza căreia a solicitat, prin Cererea nr. XI/G/133/29.06.2000. falimentul BIR, respectiv că BANCA NOASTRĂ S-AR FI AFLAT ÎN INCAPACITATE DE PLATĂ !? Faptul că BIR nu se afla în încetare de plăți la 10 iulie 2000 (data declanșării procedurii de faliment al BIR) rezultă – fără putință de tagadă – și din EXTRASELE DE CONT din perioada 03.07.2000 – 27.07.2000 obținute chiar de la BNR după un proces chinuitor (știindu-se cu musca pe căciulă, BNR s-a opus cu înverșunare solicitării noastre de a ne pune la dispoziție copii lizibile ale acestor extrase de cont), care a durat cca 3 (trei) ani, prin adresa BNR nr. XX/2/1883/14.04.2014, în temeiul Deciziei ÎCCJ nr. 670/12.02.2014 pronunțate în Dosarul nr. 3035/2/2012. Pentru a vă putea convinge de scandaloasa rea-credință cu care a acționat BNR în această problemă, vă înaintăm alăturat o copie a extrasului de cont din 27 iulie 2000. Din examinarea acestui extras de cont rezultă cu claritate că: a.- BNR a premeditat – în deplină cunoștință a realității/a adevărului – falimentul BIR deoarece știa cu exactitate că BIR nu (Repetăm: NU) se afla în incapacitate de plată. Extrasele de cont ale BIR s-au aflat/se mai află și acum în custodia BNR !? b.- BIR a mai efectuat plăți chiar timp de încă 10 (zece) zile de la declanșarea falimentului prin Sentința nr. 4461/10.07.2000. În pofida afirmațiilor dolosive ale BNR, banca noastră NU S-A AFLAT ÎN INCAPACITATE DE PLATĂ PÂNĂ LA 27 IULIE 2000 când un comando al lichidatorilor condus de dl Călin ZAMFIRESCU, socrul dlui Cătălin PREDOIU, a ocupat prin forță sediul central al BIR și a preluat samavolnic patrimoniul/averea noastră fără a încheia vreun document legal de predare-primire cu administratorii băncii noastre. c.- La data pronunțării Sentinței nr. 4461/10.07.2000 BIR dispunea de lichidități care îi permiteau să efectueze plăți către clienții care se aglomerasesă la ghișeele BIR pentru a-și retrage depunerile. Aglomerarea s-a crea exclusiv ca urmare a panicii provocate intenționat de BNR prin ilegalul/criminalul COMUNICAT DE PRESĂ DIN 9 MAI 2000 (rugăm vedeți pct. 4 al acestei sesizări). Deosebit de semnificativă – în acest sens – este constatarea făcută chiar de către instanța care a pronunțat Sentința nr. 4461/10.07.2000, constatare care anulează motivele invocate de BNR : „…prin mulțimea deponenților care așteaptă la sediile băncii să-și ridice banii”. Această constatare corectă a instanței constituie – de fapt – cea mai elocventă dovadă concretă/indubitabilă că la data declanșării falimentului (10.07.2000): BIR nu se afla în incapacitate de plată, așa cum a susținut în mod mincinos BNR; – BIR dispunea de lichidități care îi permiteau să efectueze plăți către depunătorii aflați la sediile sale. Consemnarea instanței se constituie ca o probă proprie a instanței, prin constatarea existenței la ghișeele BIR a unei mulțimi de deponenți cărora li se restituiau sumele depuse. ACEASTA ESTE CEA DE-A ȘASEA DOVADĂ – CEA RUINĂTOARE – A PREMEDITĂRII FALIMENTULUI BIR DE CĂTRE BNR ! Stimată doamnă prim-ministru, Acestea sunt doar unele din ilegalitățile săvârșite de BNR pentru a obține falimentul Băncii Internaționale a Religiilor. Este cert că dl Mugur ISĂRESCU cunoaște foarte bine toate ilegalitățile pe baza cărora BNR a reușit să obțină falimentul băncii noastre. Esențial este ca Domnia Sa să fie convins de către Guvernul României să respecte prevederile legilor țării noastre, înclusiv obligația care îi este impusă de art. 291 alin. 1 și 2 Cod pr.pen. – Sesizările făcute de persoane cu funcții de conducere. De asemenea, vă mai adresăm și rugămintea de a dispune demersurile pe care le considerați de cuviință pentru a asigura atât instaurarea SUPREMAȚIEI LEGII în Dosarul nr. 194/P/03 privind falimentul politico-fraudulos al Băncii Internaționale a Religiilor, cât și RECUPERAREA imensului prejudiciu pricinuit de BNR prin premeditarea falimentării băncii noastre. Așteptăm cu mare interes să ne comunicați răspunsul dvs. Subliniem că nu suntem interesați să ne aduceți la cunoștință părerile BNR privind ilegalitățile supuse atenției dvs. prin această sesizare deoarece le cunoaștem foarte bine. NE INTERESEAZĂ DOAR MĂSURILE PE CARE LE VEȚI DISPUNE PENTRU: a.- A DETERMINA CA BNR/dl Mugur ISĂRESCU SĂ RESPECTE LEGILE ȚĂRII, INCLUSIV art. 291 alin. 1 și 2 Cod pr.pen. și b.- A FACILITA INSTAURAREA SUPREMAȚIEI LEGII ÎN DOSARUL Nr. 194/P/03 PRIVIND FALIMENTAREA POLITICO-FRAUDULOASĂ a Băncii Internaționale a Religiilor, falimentare provocată de BNR prin ilegalitățile sus-prezentate pe scurt. Vă mulțumim ! Cu deosebit respect, Prof. Toma BĂLĂȘOIU Reprezentantul acționarilor Băncii Internaționale a Religiilor Una din miile de victime nevinovate ale falimentului politico-premeditat al Băncii Internaționale a Religiilor. P.S. Folosim acest prilej pentru a supune atenției dvs. articolul intitulat „Un secret rușinos despre Mugur Isărescu ținut ascuns timp de 20 de ani”, publicat de agenția de presă www.criterii.ro. Considerăm că gravitatea faptei dezvăluite de autorul acestui articol impune necesitatea verificării autenticității acesteia de către autoritățile noastre competente. „NIMENI NU ESTE MAI PRESUS DE LEGE”, nici chiar domnul Mugur ISĂRESCU! Tags: „Un secret rușinos despre Mugur Isărescu ținut ascuns timp de 20 de ani” Emil Ioța Ghizari BNR înscrisuri semnate ilegal Emil Ioța Ghizari calitate falsă de guvernator al BNR falimentul politico-fraudulos al Băncii Internaționale a Religiilor ilegalități BNR pentru a falimenta BIR lichidarea Băncii Internaționale a Religiilor Mugur Isărescu acuzat de falimentarea deliberată a Băncii Inernaționale a Religiilor 2 COMMENTS Jan Valjean Posted februarie 8, 2018 at 10:37 AM Mugur Isarescu este omul FMI,BM,BERD si a turor asociatiilor financiar-bancare evreiesti masonice,n-are nicio treaba cu Romania si poporul roman pe care-i jefuieste si exploateaza prin politica monetara a BNR ca un satrap din antichitate,totul la comanda comanditarilor sai.Din punctul meu de vedere este cel mai mare tradator si vanzator de tara de pe lista celor de dupa dec.1989. RĂSPUNDE stefan Posted februarie 8, 2018 at 7:28 PM Singura ,,persoana” care poate sa-l invinga este,, Doamna cu coasa”

Catalin Predoiu - conflict de interese

Catalin Predoiu – incompatibilitate si conflict de interese in toata perioada mandatului de ministru al justitiei În dosarul nr. 194/P/2002 privind falimentul fraudulos al BIR s-au dat solutii asa cum a dorit Catalin Predoiu (a se vedea declaratiile olografe ale lui Fanel Pavalache – fost consilier guvernamental - date de sus-numitul la DNA in perioada arestului) Iată succesiunea faptelor în dosarul penal suscitat : In ciuda dovezilor pertinente existente la dosar, si a Concluziilor stabilite de Comisiile pentru cercetarea abuzurilor si coruptiei din cele doua Camere ale Parlamentului care efectuase cercetari, audieri, expertize etc. in dosarul BIR, DNA prin procuror Mariana Alexandru, desi se incepuse urmarirea penala ”in rem” inca din anul 2004, dispune neincepererea urmarii penale “in personam” impotriva grupului de interese implicat in falimentul fraudulos al BIR. Conform art. 278 indice 1 Cod procedura penala solutia DNA a fost atacata in instanta de Consiliul de Administratie al BIR. La 26.09.2006, in recurs, ÎCCJ - Secţia Penală admite plangerea Consiliului de Administratie si pronunta decizia nr. 5515 prin care dispune inceperea urmaririi penale “in personam” impotriva grupului de interese citat in Raportul Comun al Comisiilor pentru cercetarea abuzurilor si coruptiei din cele doua Camere ale Parlamentului privind falimentul fraudulos al BIR. Printre cei nominalizati se afla şi avocatii Călin Andrei Zamfirescu – socrul lui Catalin Predoiu si Arin Stanescu – conform unor surse fe presa - nas de cununie al lui Catalin Predoiu. Călin Zamfirescu si ginerele sau Catalin Predoiu sunt patroni ai Casei de avocatura ZRP - Zamfirescu-Racoti-Predoiu. Calin Zamfirescu si Arin Stănescu, - deci socrul, respectiv nasul lui Catalin Predoiu sunt si asociati in firma de lichidare denumita initial Reconversie- valorificare active, devenita Moore Stepehnes iar apoi RVA Insolvency Specialists. Aceasta firma de insolventa a celor doi avocati au lichidat toate bancile romanesti si cele mai importamnte societati din tara intrate in insolventa de la care au incasat sute de miliarde de lei. Faptele imputate celor doi avocati si colaboratorilor lor au fost cele prevăzute de art. 11 din Legea nr. 78/2000 şi art. 246 Cod pen.. La 21.02.2007, prin Rezoluţie, DNA începe urmărirea penală împotriva învinuiţilor nominalizaţi in dosar. La 04.02.2008 (deci la un an după începerea urmăririi penale “in personam” ), procurorul de caz Maria Trandabat ajunge la concluzia că faptele săvârşite de învinuiţii din grup sunt mai grave şi dispune prin Ordonanţă schimbarea încadrării juridice din infracţiunea de abuz în serviciu contra intereselor persoanei, prevzută de art. 246 Cod pen., în infracţiunea de abuz în serviciu contra intereselor persoanei, în formă calificată, în modalitate continuată, prevăzută de art.246 rap. la art.2481 cu aplicarea art.41 alin.2 Cod pen.. La 29.02.2008, întâmplator sau nu, avocatul Cătălin Predoiu este numit ministrul justiţiei . Din surse de presa rezulta ca numirea sa a fost rodul unor insistente ale lui Valeriu Stoica si Calin Zamfirescu pe langa Calin Popescu Tariceanu. La 11 martie 2008 avocatul Călin Zamfirescu declară într-un interviu acordat Jurnalului Naţional, că Direcţia Naţională Anticorupţie îi va scoate de sub urmărire penală pe toţi 14 învinuiţi . Oare de unde ştia avocatul Călin Zamfirescu la 11 martie 2008, - dupa numirea ginerelui sau ca ministru al justitiei - că el însuşi şi ceilalţi învinuiţi vor fi scoşi de sub urmărire penală ? La 24 aprilie 2008, procurorul de caz Maria Trandabăţ din DNA – care bineînţeles îşi desfăşura activitatea sub autoritatea ministrului justiţiei - pronunţă Ordonanţa de scoatere de sub urmărire penală a întregului grup . Poate crede cineva că toate cele de mai sus, sunt simple coincidenţe de fapte şi date calendaristice ? Avocatul Catalin Predoiu a fost ministrul justiţiei. Este de notorietate ca acesta este ginerele avocatului Călin Andrei Zamfirescu, cu care era asociat în societatea de avocatură ZRP (Zamfiresu-Racoţi-Predoiu) şi totodată, asociat cu avocatul Arin Stănescu – naşul de cununie al acestuia - în societatea de lichidare Reconversie-Valorificare active devenită ulterior Moore Stephens RVA şi apoi acţionând în societatea de insolvenţă RVA Insolvency Specialists SPRL. Care procuror din România s-ar fi încumetat să urmărească penal pe socrul ministrului justiţiei (dl Cătălin Predoiu), pe nasul de cununie al acestuia, pe asociaţii şi pe colaboratorii lor, intrucat prin funcţia si competentele sale, ministrul justitiei exercită controlul şi dă îndrumări tuturor procurorilor din Romania. In speţă, ne-am aflat într-un caz de flagrantă incompatibilitate şi conflict de interese Probăm incompatibilitatea si conflictul de interese cu dispozitiile legale de mai jos astfel: Legea nr. 304/2004 privind activitatea judiciară stipulează : Art. 59 alin. 2 : „Procurorii îşi desfăşoară activitatea potrivit principiilor legalităţii, imparţialităţii şi controlului ierarhic, sub autoritatea ministrului justiţiei..” ; Art. 66 alin. 1 : „Ministrul justiţiei... din proprie iniţiativă sau la cererea CSM... exercită controlul asupra procurorilor....prin procurorii inspectori din cadrul Parchetului de pe lângă Înalta Curte de Casaţie şi Justiţie, din Parchetul Naţional Anticorupţie...” Art. 66 alin. 3 : „Ministrul justiţiei poate să ceară procurorului general sau după caz procurorului general al Parchetului Naţional Anticorupţie informări asupra activităţii.... şi să dea îndrumări cu privire la măsurile ce trebuie luate ...” Pentru a sublinia incompatibilitatea generală şi văditul conflict de interese existent în dosarele BIR aflate pe rolul diferitelor instanţe din România, în care a fost direct implicată şi direct interesată familia domnului Cătălin Predoiu, fost ministru al justiţiei, fapt ce a determinat imposibilitatea respectării de către procurori şi instanţele de judecată a principiilor independenţei şi imparţialităţii, vom reda mai jos extrase şi din prevederile legii nr. 317/2004 care demonstrează faptul că prin funcţia pe care a ocupat-o, domnul Cătălin Predoiu avea atribuţii şi competenţe legate direct de cariera magistraţilor, respectiv de numirea acestora, de promovarea, de eliberarea din funcţie, de retribuirea acestora, etc. etc. Ori, în aceste condiţii, care judecător şi care procuror ar fi îndrăznit să dea soluţii împotriva intereselor familiei dlui Cătălin Predoiu, în cunoştiinţă fiind că de acesta depinde cariera acelui judecător sau procuror . Astfel, textul Legii nr. 317/2004, republicată în Monitorul Oficial al României, Partea I, nr. 827 din 13 septembrie 2005 privind Consiliul Superior al Magistraturii stipulează în articolele de mai jos următoarele : Art. 3 . Consiliul Superior al Magistraturii este alcătuit din 19 membri, din care: c) presedintele Înaltei Curţi de Casaţie si Justiţie, reprezentant al puterii judecătoresti, ministrul justiţiei si procurorul general al Parchetului de pe lângă Înalta Curte de Casaţie si Justiţie, care sunt membri de drept ai Consiliului. Deci ministrul justiţiei este membru de drept al Consiliului Superior al Magistraturii. Art. 28 .(1) Presedintele Înaltei Curţi de Casaţie si Justiţie participă la lucrările secţiei pentru judecători, procurorul general al Parchetului de pe lângă Înalta Curte de Casaţie si Justiţie, la lucrările secţiei pentru procurori, iar ministrul justiţiei, la lucrările ambelor secţii. Deci ministrul justiţiei participă la lucrările secţiilor pentru judecători şi pentru procurori. (2) Presedintele Înaltei Curţi de Casaţie si Justiţie, ministrul justiţiei si procurorul general al Parchetului de pe lângă Înalta Curte de Casaţie si Justiţie nu au drept de vot în situaţiile în care secţiile îndeplinesc rolul de instanţă de judecată în domeniul răspunderii disciplinare. Deci, ministrul justiţiei nu are drept de vot, numai în domeniul răspunderii disciplinare. Art. 35 . Plenul Consiliului Superior al Magistraturii are următoarele atribuţii referitoare la cariera judecătorilor si procurorilor ; A se reţine : ministrul justiţiei face parte din plenul Consiliului Sduperior al Magistraturii care, a) propune Presedintelui României numirea în funcţie si eliberarea din funcţie a judecătorilor si a procurorilor, cu excepţia celor stagiari; b) numeste judecătorii stagiari si procurorii stagiari, pe baza rezultatelor obţinute la examenul de absolvire a Institutului Naţional al Magistraturii; c) dispune promovarea judecătorilor si a procurorilor; d) eliberează din funcţie judecătorii stagiari si procurorii stagiari; e) propune Presedintelui României conferirea de distincţii pentru judecători si procurori, în condiţiile legii; f) îndeplineste orice alte atribuţii stabilite prin lege sau regulament. Deci, şi de ministrul justiţiei depinde cariera în general a magistraţilor, respectiv numirea, eliberarea, promovarea şi conferirea de distincţii a judecătorilor şi procurorilor. Art. 59 .(4) Bugetul pentru curţile de apel, tribunale, tribunale specializate si judecătorii este gestionat de către Ministerul Justiţiei, ministrul justiţiei având calitatea de ordonator principal de credite. Asadar, toţi magistraţii Curţilor de apel, ai Tribunalelor şi Judecătoriilor primesc retribuţiile (salariile) în baza semnăturii ministrului justiţiei, în calitatea sa, de ordonator principal de credite. Si conflictul de interese în acest dosar este mai mult decât evident . Citând din prevederile HG nr. 652 /2009 privind organizarea şi funcţionarea Ministerului Justiţiei şi Libertăţilor Cetăţeneşti, vom demonstra si existenţa clară a conflictului de interese în această cauză, astfel : Art. 9 din acest act normativ stipulează : “ministrul indeplineste, in domeniile de competenta ale Ministerului … atributiile specifice prevazute in Legea nr. 303/2004 privind statutul judecatorilor si procurorilor, republicata, cu modificarile si completarile ulterioare, in Legea nr. 304/2004 privind organizarea judiciara, republicata, cu modificarile si completarile ulterioare, in Legea nr. 317/2004 privind Consiliul Superior al Magistraturii, republicata, cu modificarile si completarile ulterioare, si in Legea nr. 567/2004 privind statutul personalului auxiliar de specialitate al instantelor judecatoresti si al parchetelor de pe langa acestea, cu modificarile si completarile ulterioare”, iar art. 14 din acelaşi act normativ precizează : “ministrul este ordonator principal de credite, presedintii curtilor de apel sunt ordonatori secundari de credite, iar presedintii tribunalelor sunt ordonatori tertiari de credite”. Iată cum este definit conflictul de interese în art. 13 alin. 3 din Recomandarea nr. 10/2000 a Comitetului Miniştrilor Consiliului Europei : “Conflictul de interese se naşte în situaţia în care un funcţionar public are un interes de natură să influenţeze sau să pară a influenţa asupra exercitării imparţiale şi obiective funcţiilor sale publice. Interesul personal al funcţionarului public cuprinde orice avantaj pentru el însuşi sau în favoarea familiei sale, a părinţilor, a prietenilor sau persoanelor apropiate, a persoanelor sau organizaţiilor cu care el a avut relaţii de afaceri sau politice.El cuprinde de asemenea orie obligaţie financiară sau civilă la care este constrâns funcţionarul public”. În raport cu prevederile HG nr. 652 /2009 privind organizarea şi funcţionarea Ministerului Justiţiei şi Libertăţilor Cetăţeneşti şi art. 13 alin. 3 din Recomandarea nr. 10/2000 a Comitetului Miniştrilor Consiliului Europei, având în vedere atribuţiile dlui avocat Cătălin Predoiu, ca ministru al justiţiei, ginerele avocatului Calin Andrei Zamfirescu şi din informatii, fin de cununie al dlui Arin Stanescu, raporturile sale de familie cu acestia si in acelasi timp raporturile sale directe cu Parchetele si instanţele judecătoreşti, ce poate fi mai evident decât faptul că, în prezenta speţă ne aflăm în mod clar în faţa unui conflict de interese, că în mod direct sau indirect, există o influenţă şi intimidare a procurorului de caz si a instanţelor în dosarele în care familia avocatului Cătălin Predoiu este implicată, că în prezenta cauză nu poate fi negată influenţa şi intimidarea, întrucât dl Cătălin Predoiu are în mod cert un interes personal de a obţine avantaje pentru el şi pentru familia sa .

Romania - tara fara banci romanesti

De curand a aparut la editura Contrast lucrarea-document intitulata "Romania - tara fara banci romanesti" - falimentul fraudulos al Bancii Internationale a Religiilor - studiu de caz.

THE  HISTORY  OF THE FRAUDULENT BANKRUPTCY OF THE INTERNATIONAL BANK OF RELIGIONS

“ORGANIZED CRIME AND INSTITUTIONALIZED CORRUPTION”*)

Traducere: Prof.Lavinia Matei

^*) Extract from the Joint Report of the Abuse Research Committees of the two Chambers of Parliament of Romania concerning the bankruptcy of the International Bank of Religions:

"The results of this research and verification, supplemented by expert specialists have concluded with certainty that in this case we face an act of organized crime and institutionalized corruption".

                                                                                       

Foreword

In January 1991, the Ecumenical International Center was created in Bucharest, as a non-governmental, non-political, religious, social-cultural, non-lucrative organization representing the clergy and laymen of various confessions and ethnicities in Romania and abroad.

The Doctrine of the Ecumenical International Center is "Harmony," which is generated from the belief that the rainbow law represents the moral law of respect for each person's identity, because this is how things happen with the wonder of the rainbow made up of so many colours melting happily in their unique glow, each keeping its own seal.

Since 1993, the Ecumenical International Center operates under the auspices of UNESCO - the National Commission of Romania.

The Ecumenical International Center is a system of ideological and pragmatic projects designed to demonstrate that all religions and confessions in the world have a great role to play in avoiding fundamentalism, starting from the unanimously accepted premise that God is the same for every human being, regardless of skin colour, ethnicity, or faith, especially in today's historical conditions, characterized by religious based armed conflicts in different regions of the world.

Ever since its first days of work, the Ecumenical International Center has been firmly and persuasively committed to promoting practical and concrete ideas and actions with the purpose of knowing, conciliating, understanding and collaboration among all religious confessions within the country and abroad.

Ideally, the Center aims to contribute through its entire activity to the creation of a spiritual climate of dialogue, understanding, collaboration and mutual respect among all the cults and religions of the world, among all the people aware of worshiping and serving the same God. To this end, the "International Academy for World History, Culture and Religions Study" was set up, where great and notorious university professors and academicians gave the society four promotions of specialists in the field. The Center published the socio - cultural magazine «Armonia».

Also, in 1998, the Center established "Inter-religious settlements", building an Orthodox Christian church (founded by Dr. Ion Popescu) in Vulcana Bai, Dambovita county, a synagogue for the Mosaic believers (founded by Ruby and Michael Zimmeman), and a mosque for Muslim believers (founded by Leila and Omar Akili), as symbols of the three great monotheistic religions of the world, whose believers have been living in harmony for centuries in Romania, without any conflicts, working and praying together, within the "great passing through this ephemeral life".

Short history

The idea of ​​creating a bank of religions belonged to the Ecumenical International Center. Therefore, in September 1993, "the Romanian Interconfessional Bank" was established in Bucharest, by the following founding members: the Romanian Orthodox Church Patriarchate, the Metropolitans, the Bishoprics, the Deaneries etc., other central and local entities of other cults, as well as individuals and legal persons from several countries, including two business groups in Israel through the Ruby and Michael Zimmerman brothers, and Saudi Arabia through his highness, prince Zaid Bin Nasser al Melehi .

A distinctive fact: by the time of the International Bank of Religions establishment, Romania did not have diplomatic relations with Saudi Arabia. Only two years later, diplomatic relations were established between the two countries.

On March 1^st, 1994, as a result of the diversification of the bank's ownership, through the participation of foreign shareholders of different religions, at the General Meeting of Shareholders, organized at the Bucharest National Theater, the bank changed its name to the “International Bank of Religions” (BIR).

The total number of BIR shareholders was/ is 2,188 individuals and legal persons.

Also on March 1^st, 1994, the International Bank of Religions began its operational activity with a branch in Bucharest, a social capital of only 4 billion lei and 13 employees.

By its character and originality, BIR has become worldwide unique in the field. Nowhere in the world there was such a credit institution, involved in supporting the economy, culture and religious life.

By January 1^st, 2000, BIR's joint stock had multiplied 50 times, increasing to ROL 200 billion (USD 400 million, February 1^st, 1993 exchange rate, the date of BIR establishment). The bank was operating with 110 units at branch level in all major cities across the country, agencies and numerous rural work stations, the latter having offices and parish houses, with 1860 Semployees, out of which 90% were young people.

In addition to the bank's units, another 240 units of the Concordia Romanian Credit Cooperative functioned directly with the BIR network, also created at the initiative of the Ecumenical International Center, its operations being carried out exclusively through the BIR, the assets of the bank rising, at that time, to over ROL 2,500 billion.

Also, BIR had set up its own insurance and reinsurance company - Provitas SA, a transferable securities company - Interfinbrok Corporation SA, as well as, other companies, like: security, value transport - Transval Corporation SA, construction - BIR-Construct SA, trade - Investar International Holding SA, a micro-clinic - Provita Medical SA, etc. The first private Romanian railway company, CRTF SA, was also created by the BIR.

All the units of the bank were equipped with modern computing systems, compatible with the year 2000, and the county units were equipped with satellite communications, all the operations being carried out in real time.

Another important fact: the first ATMs were introduced in Romania by BIR, in 1995, operating at BIR - Bucharest branch, one for lei, and the second for US dollars.

In January 2000, the BIR network operated with 1,860 employees (over 90% - young people), covering the entire territory of Romania, and the number of employees in all projects of the Ecumenical International Center counted over 4,500.

The International Bank of Religions has been very interested in lending to the real economy, supporting small entrepreneurs and heavily investing in rural development, mainly in agriculture, through its own "Rural Credit" Department, with its own publication "The Romanian Peasant", and since 1995, in Târgovişte, the symposium "Agriculture - our everyday bread" was held annually, with the national participation of specialists in the field.

During the all the period of operation, the entire BIR's profit was over USD 25 million, paying to the Romanian State taxes of ROL 50 billion.

A Romanian idea destroyed by a group of interests

The story of the International Bank of Religions, its destruction - as a purely Romanian idea - represents the drama of the destruction of the Romanian capital, after the events of December 1989.

Not only banking specialists, but also those outside this system can understand how big is the financial volume, how huge is the capital of the world's religions and how special would have been the benefits of such a bank existence, here in Romania, a country that has never known, historically speaking, inter-ethnic or inter-religious conflicts.

In revealing the truth in the case of the deliberate bankruptcy of the International Bank of Religions, was the distinguished specialist, the venerable Professor Radu Ciuceanu, as chairman of the Committee for the Abuse and Anti-Corruption Research in the Chamber of Deputies, for more than three years, who published on this issue the three-volume paper entitled "The Complete War against Corruption in Romania - Bankruptcy and Liquidation of the BIR - Action of Organized Crime and Institutionalized Corruption" .

            

 The conclusions of this document were included in a Joint Report of the Committees for the Survey of Abuses and Fighting Corruption in the two Chambers of Parliament.

To this respect, it is important to underline that by this Joint Report, the action of the  group of interest that destroyed post-December Romanian banks, was considered to be an act of organized crime and institutionalized corruption.

As it follows, using official verified documents and data, there are revealed accurate and rigorous information about the entire story of premeditated bankruptcy of the International Bank of Religions, as well as its adjoining projects, as a dramatic episode of the intentional destruction not only of the Romanian state and private banking system, but also of the domestic capital, the only forces that could successfully support both the re-launch and the development of the country's economy.

* * *

In an interview with Mr. Marius Tuca, the director of "Jurnalul Naţional" newspaper, on 21 December 2002, Mr. Mugur Isărescu, the Governor of the National Bank of Romania, honestly admits - indirectly - answering the question:

"They said that the BNR was wrong when asked for BIR bankruptcy. Does the BNR feel guilty about this? "Here is his answer:

"I was not here, then. I was Prime Minister. It's not good for me to talk."

In conclusion, others are to blame, others have been wrong, not me - Mugur Isarescu.

As it will be clear below, the bankruptcy of BIR was not "a mistake", the bankruptcy of this bank was, in fact, premeditated by a group of interest through an action of organized crime and institutionalized corruption. The State competent authorities refuse until now to take the necessary legal measures.

* * *

The International Bank of Religions started the year 1999 under particularly favorable conditions.

The balance of investments in other banks and government securities was set at ROL 496.4 billion ROL on April 30^th 1999, at least 6 times more than on December 31^st 1998, when these were 78.3 billion ROL.

On May 31^st 1999, only those BIR investments generated revenues of ROL 103.7 billion. The first months of 1999 showed a marked increase in the bank's liquidity.

On May 17^th 1999, on a TV show, Mr. Ovidiu Grecea, head of the Bank's Asset Recovery Agency (AVAB), at the time, in the presence of Adrian Vasilescu, Advisor to the Governor of the BNR, referring to the debt takeover by AVAB from state-owned banks (Bancorex, Agricultural Bank, etc.) launched the rumour that the International Bank of Religions was in a "crisis situation", a fact that was totally unrealistic. We mention that Mr. Adrian Vasilescu, who was present, did not disapprove to Mr. Ovidiu Grecea.

The result of this rumour was that, as of the second day, BIR depositors exerted pressure at the counters of the bank, demanding the withdrawal of deposits, ahead of schedule.

In order to cope with these withdrawals and to provide the necessary liquidities, BIR had to give up, also ahead of schedule, its large holdings in government bonds and on the interbank market.

This mystification of the truth by Mr. Ovidiu Grecea meant for the bank a loss of about ROL 120 billion.

BNR's complicity with Mr. Ovidiu Grecea is also confirmed by the refusal of the BNR's management to publicly reject his falsely asserted claims.

In November 2002, former government adviser Fănel Păvălache, arrested for corruption offenses, said:

"In August 1999, three friends and colleagues from the faculty, lawyers Arin Stănescu, Călin Zamfirescu and Valeriu Stoica, the last, Minister of Justice, at the time, conceived and the Government issued, the Government Emergency Ordinance no. 79/1999 regarding the activity organization of the practitioners in reorganization and liquidation, that was published in the Official Gazette no. 421/31^st of August 1999. Obviously, this order is countersigned by Valeriu Stoica, Minister of Justice. The two lawyers set up the National Union of Practitioners in Reorganization and Liquidation." .

BIR has hardly managed to overcome the difficult moment created by the TV show of May 17^th 1999 and to gradually recover the confidence of its customers. Subsequently, in the second half of 1999, the deposits have risen again, especially those for one-month and three-months, that led to increasing the volume of payments by economic agents made through the bank.

In order to stimulate the recovery and reactivation of some credits, the BIR board, based on the provisions of the Commercial Code and the Civil Code, issues on 21^st of July 1999, Circular no. 64. According to this, some branches assign debts, especially those harder to recover, but all being secured by collateral under the BIR mortgage, according to the Circular mentioned above.

At the same time, the BNR issued the Norms and the methodology of off-balance-sheet debts with an enforceable form. By exceeding the legal provisions, before the recovery ways for these guaranteed debts had been consumed, so before they become actual losses, the BNR imposed, by these Norms, that such debts should be recorded in the balance as "accounting losses".

A new regulation of the BNR also stipulates to includ on the cost of the specific risk provisions, therefore affecting the financial results and deforming the situation of the bank's net assets and patrimony.

The Government Emergency Ordinance No 186/1999, amending the Law No. 83/1998 on bankruptcy procedure, was issued on November 19^th 1999, under "emergency conditions" and with unimaginable "operability". The authors of this Emergency Ordinance were the lawyers mentioned by Fănel Păvălache in his statements, Arin Stănescu and Călin Zamfirescu, the managers of the new company "Reconversion and Asset Recovery", specialized in reorganization and judicial liquidation.

The main amendment to the Law no. 83/1998, by GEO no. 186/1999, consisted in the text of Article 17, as it follows:

The Law no. 83/ 1998 art. 17 provided the following:

"As a banking supervisor, the BNR will be able to file a claim against the bank to which special supervision and administration measures have been applied, that have not led to the recovery of the bank, in a situation of inability to fully honor the payments."

By the GEO no. 186/1999, the text of art. 17 was amended as it follows:

"As a banking supervisor, the BNR will be able to file a claim against the bank to which special supervision or administration measures have been applied, that have not led to the recovery of the bank in a situation of inability to honor the payments."

Therefore, by replacing the conjunction "and" in the Law with "or" in the Ordinance and the phrase "to fully honor the payments" in the Law with the word "to honor the payments" in the Ordinance, it was created the possibility to initiate the bankruptcy procedure of any bank, with the fulfillment of the two cumulative conditions (special supervision and administration measures) not being mandatory, even if in the market economy system, before the insolvency procedure of a commercial company is pronounced, the judicial reorganization of the company is the first measure to be taken.

Emergency Ordinance no. 186/1999 is signed and sent only to the Chamber of Deputies, and then published in the Official Gazette, all this being done during only one day, on Friday, November 19th 1999, which was a short working day.

"Incidentally" or not, based on the new regulations of the GEO no. 186/1999, on the same day of Friday, November 19^th 1999, the National Bank of Romania requested Bankcoop bankruptcy at The Bucharest Law Court.

As stated above, the two Emergency Ordinances were designed and elaborated by lawyers Arin Stănescu and Călin Zamfirescu, the managers of the new liquidation company "Reconversion and Asset Recovery", collaborators of the BNR Deputy Governor, Mihai Bogza (PNL), who was, at the same time, both the chairman of the Banking System Deposit Guarantee Fund and the BNR coordinator of banking supervision.

After the issuance of the Government Emergency Ordinance no. 186/1999, on November 19^th 1999, also "by chance", on November 26^th 1999, lawyers Arin Stănescu and Călin Zamfirescu became "practitioners in judicial reorganization and liquidation", and on the same day, their new liquidation company, "Reconversion and Asset Recovery", was listed, together with their nomination, in the Liquidation Companies List published in the Official Gazette as a specialized company in liquidation.

But the sequence of events does not stop here. The Bucharest Law Court - the Commercial Section, appoints as the Bankcoop liquidator, with the BNR’s notice, the very company " Assets Reconversion and Valuation", of the respective two lawyers. The company was also in the process of liquidating, on the basis of Law No. 64/1998, of Albina Bank, it was also legal administrator at Dacia Felix Bank and Columna Bank, and later, their liquidation portfolio extended to Fortuna People's Bank, People's Development Bank, Investment and Development Bank etc.

On December 21st 1999, Mugur Isarescu, the governor of the BNR, is appointed by the Parliament as Prime Minister of the Romanian Government. According to the provisions of art. 34 par. 3 and art. 36 par. 5 of the Law no. 101/1998 on the Statute of the National Bank of Romania, at the BNR management, was appointed by the Parliament of Romania as acting governor, Mr. Emil Iota Ghizari, who was first deputy governor. We mention/ repeat that Mr. Emil Iota Ghizari was not appointed as governor of the National Bank of Romania, but as a substitute acting governor.

* * *

We emphasize that the fraudulent bankruptcy case of the International Bank of Religions was the subject of study and analysis of the Committees for the Survey of Abuses and Fighting against Corruption in the two Chambers of Parliament for over three and a half years. They carried out research, thorough scrutiny, hearings, experts reports etc., and elaborated on this topic under the direct coordination of the venerable Prof. Dr. Radu Ciuceanu, a former anti-Communist political prisoner, the document - "The Complete War Against Corruption in Romania (three volumes) and concluded, in their Joint Report, that the bankruptcy of the International Bank of Religions is in fact an "Organized crime and high-level institutional corruption action".

The expert reports on the case reveal that on January 1st 2000, the IMF's immediate liquidity (minimum required reserve, deposits with other banks, investments in securities etc.) amounted to ROL 1,046 billion and the bank's net assets were positive, amounting to ROL 186.2 billion.

Due to the "Ovidiu Grecea" episode of May 17^th 1999, the BIR financial year for 1999 was to end with the lowest profit in the bank's activity, though the 1999 financial year ended on a positive scale, not on the red.

Otherwise, speaking about the International Bank of Religions indicators, the question arises - how inappropriate could they have been, given the fact that, since the creation of the bank until 1999, the BIR censors were Mr. Nicolae Cinteza, the director of the Supervision Division of the National Bank of Romania, Mr. Titus Popescu, Deputy Governor Advisor of the National Bank of Romania who even coordinated the supervision activity and Mr. Nicolae Smărăndescu, General Manager of the Ministry of Finance, all three of them being  famous bank specialists?

Also on January 1^st 2000, at a total of ROL 1,400 billion in loans, the loans in litigation accounted 9.7% - ROL 149.5 billion. Current loans had a share between 71% and 79%. (All data is provided by the expertise carried out at the request of the Commission for Abuse Research and Anti-Corruption of the Chamber of Deputies).

Therefore, on January 1^st 2000, the BIR indicators could not lead to the idea of ​​initiating bankruptcy proceeding because there were no conditions stipulated by the law amended by GEO no. 186/1999.

Nevertheless, BNR continued to make a heavy blow to the bank by issuing Norm no. 1/ 24.01.2001 that, contrary to the provisions of art. 115 of the Law no. 58/1998 on banking activity, imposed a devastating measure on the bank itself, namely:

"The establishment of a special regime for the discount settlement of payments and receipts operations".

If it had complied with the provision of art. 115 of the Law no. 58/1998, the BNR could have ordered "the introduction of the special administration measure", that did not meet the BNR's interest in bankruptcy of the bank.

It is obvious that, by imposing "special administration", the BNR premeditated and excluded the possibility of rescuing the bank from bankruptcy because it knew with certainty that enforcing the "special discount settlement regime" was a safe way to bankruptcy.

This is one of the undisputable evidence that the BNR has premeditated the bankruptcy of the International Bank of Religions.

On January 15^th 2000, a so-called "routine control" was initiated at BIR, by the BNR Deputy Governor Mihai Bogza's decision. Such a previous control was concluded only a few months before, namely in October 1999.

On January 28^th 2000, the BNR leadership issued Circular no. 6, which, at point 7, provides that:

 "The claims made by banks in 1999 were to be registered as loss."

The only bank in the system that had executed such assignments in 1999, in fact according to the provisions of the Civil Code and the Commercial Code, was the International Bank of Religions.

By obviously violating the constitutional principle of the law's non-retroactivity (Article 15 paragraph 2 of the Romanian Constitution), the BNR unlawfully obliged BIR to apply this Circular retroactively, for the 1999 financial year, which had just ended.

 The result: instead of the BIR financial exercise for 1999 to end on a positive scale, it recorded an "accounting loss" of ROL 101.5 billion.

On February 1^st 2000, the "routine control" of the BNR on the BIR is transformed into "special surveillance" of BNR management over the BIR activity.

Reason: "To end of the financial exercise for 1999 with an accounting loss." As noted above, this accounting loss was the direct/ natural consequence of the retroactive application of point 7 of BNR Circular 6/1999, over BIR.

Simultaneously with the special supervision, the NBR, through Deputy Governor Mihai Bogza, imposes BIR, restrictive measures such as: prohibiting the attraction of sources, prohibiting the granting of credits, prohibiting the rescheduling and rescheduling of credits, prohibiting the extension of the credit lines etc.

Basically, by imposing such restrictive measures, the International Bank of Religions, as a commercial bank, is forbidden to do business.

The target of the BNR special oversight team was one: creating the conditions for initiating the bankruptcy procedure of the BIR, according to the new regulations imposed by GEO no. 186/1999.

Anticipating what is meant by these measures, the Board of Directors of the BIR, through repeated addresses and interventions, urges BNR to give up these prohibitions.

The leadership of the BNR - Emil Iota Ghizari and Mihai Bogza - resolutely refuses to lift the restrictive measures.

Thus, from a net positive asset of BIR amounting ROL 186.2 billion on January 1^st 2000, it gradually becomes negative: on April 30^th 2000, negative ROL 78.4 billion.

This way, the first reason for the bankruptcy procedure - "net negative asset", provided in the famous GEO no. 186/1999, was elaborated by the owners of the liquidation company "Assets Reconversion and Valuation".

At the same time, however, "good-willing" and "well-informed" people from the BNR and even its officials, "recommend" the other banks, to avoid working with BIR.

Even the first deputy governor of the National Bank of Romania, Mr. Emil Iota Ghizari, urges the BOR Patriarchate to advise the worship units and the religious services – all BIR customers - to withdraw deposits from the bank quickly as "this is in crisis".

The deputy governor Mihai Bogza, who, through his party colleague Sebastian Vladescu (PNL), state secretary at the Ministry of Finance, urges companies with state capital or with autonomous management, etc. – all being BIR customers - "to withdraw their accounts and immediately leave BIR".

The series of "simple coincidences" continues: "BNR sources, which retain their anonymity", launch various allegations in the press, some of them, being real aberrations such as:

"BIR is laundering money for the Ochua drug cartel in Colombia", a cartel that would have become a shareholder in the bank." "BIR, money launder for the Russian mafia..."

 There is also a release on the leadership of the BIR:

 "The president of BIR, from the  Jewish minority, came to Romania after 1989, took a Romanian name and created  the bank (BIR) for the Jewish-Egyptian masonry."

At the request of the Committee for the Investigation of Abuses and Fight against Corruption in the Chamber of Deputies, the Office for the Prevention and Control of Money Laundering, responds through the address no. S3914 / 09.05.2002, the following:

 "Following the analyses carried out by the Office's experts to prevent and combat money laundering, it was found that these suspicions were not confirmed. We have no clue that this bank would have been laundering money."

Everything is definitely denied. But it is in vain and too late. It is well known that the public opinion reads the first news, believes everything without reading the denials. The bank's clients showed their mistrust, and they started to have reservations to the bank and act accordingly.

The depositors' pressure begins on bank counters. The bank still faces the demands, but the liquidity and minimum reserve of BIR starts to decrease.

It is natural to ask if the bankruptcy of BIR had been triggered out by the crisis indicators, for which reason bankruptcy was not demanded in January 2000?

The answer is simple: the conditions laid down in GEO no. 186/1999, issued on 19.11.999 to facilitate the bankruptcy, the net asset of the BIR was not negative, and the bank had liquidity and still made payments to the depositors.

It is more than clear: the purpose for establishing special surveillance was to prepare the conditions for the opening of the BIR bankruptcy procedure.

There are "good-willing people", - tempting proposals appear

In the autumn of 1999, the General Shareholders' Meeting of BIR decided to raise the share capital from ROL 200 billion to ROL 400 billion, by giving up the statutory provision limiting the ownership to no more than 10% of shareholding by a single shareholder.

In April 2000, Nicolae Măzgăreanu, president of the Romanian Mail Company - (shareholder of BIR with 1,13%, according to the famous algorithm from the time of the Democratic Convention, the Romanian Mail is in the PNL branch), proposes to the BIR leadership that the increase of the bank's social capital, which had been approved by the GMS in the autumn of 1999, to be carried out by the Romanian Mail Company, which will take control of BIR by owning over 51% of the capital.

Nicolae Măzgăreanu delegates his chief executive director, Cristian Tarara, to deal with the BIR leadership, which has shown its reluctance to such an idea.

Cristan Tarara comes, to meet the bank leadership, accompanied by Vlad Moisescu,  who presents himself as "the personal counselor of Valeriu Stoica, Minister of State - Minister of Justice and First Vice-President of PNL".

In essence, the two state that the Communications Department is included in the "PNL fief" according to the algorithm and that the control over BIR is wanted because its penetration possibilities in all environments, especially in rural areas, make BIR to become the bank of the "strongest party." In different meetings, to the president of BIR is made the proposal to become a member of the Parliament.

The two (VM and CT) present to the BIR management a certain Adrian Boboc, as a "business financier." Initially, he said he would provide the financing for including in the capital the Romanian Mail, that was to be owned by 9 companies, with sources in Cyprus. Then the above-mentioned person  comes back, claiming that the money will come from Belgium from a group for which he, AB, would concede golden lands in Transylvania.

It is important and necessary to mention that, during its existence, the BIR did not support with any money, any political party.

As for the proposals made for the bank to be taken over by a party (PNL), the leadership of the BIR showed a total reservation to the idea, delayed the talks, and then gave up the contacts with the two PNL messengers.

After this episode, Mrs. Adina Bogza (wife of Deputy Governor BNR Mihai Bogza), together with Nicolae Mihalache, his associate, a former bank worker at Bancorex, and Mrs. Ileana Ţurnă, a former World Bank official, introduced to the BIR leadership, for a share capital increase, a UK investors group (the Jaquilla group).

The Jaquilla Group proposes to the BIR leadership, the opening of an escrow account at a foreign bank in Bucharest for the transfer of USD 20 million as a share in BIR's share capital and promises the transfer of USD 143 million assets from a US bank.

In an audience with the BNR, the Jaquilla Group, introduced by Adina Bogza, Nicolae Mihalache and Ileana Ţurnă, requested a reasonable time for an audit at the BIR to transfer the $ 20 million.

Deputy Governor Mihai Bogza, whose wife had presented the group, delayed his response and then disagreed with the audit. Later, Ileana Ţurnă confessed to her close friends that in the negotiations between the group's representatives and Adina Bogza there had been some misunderstandings about the allowance. The group offered only 5%, while Adina Bogza insisted for 10% of the capital contribution, which led to giving up the deal.

But pressure on BIR counters continues. Deposits with maturities at the end of the year, but not in May, June or immediately in the following months of 2000 are withdrawn. It is known that the money placed in banks' deposits is not in the treasury, but in placements.

The BIR sources are progressively declining and there was an attempt to "manufacture", this way, the second reason for the initiation of the bankruptcy procedure - "payment termination" provided also by the famous Emergency Ordinance no. 186/1999 - the work of the two lawyers - liquidators - Arin Stănescu and Călin Andrei Zamfirescu.

To draw attention to the state of mistrust on the bank, the BNR issued on May 9^th 2000, a press release stating that the Bank of Religions had been set up a special regime for settlement of payments and receipts, as it had illegally been established  by BNR Norm nr. 1 / 24.01.2000.

The noisy-turbulent response of the depositors was fully justified. The consequences were pleasing the BNR leadership, which aimed to create the lack of liquidity necessary to justify BIR bankruptcy.

This is how the National Bank of Romania “prudential surveillance” functioned!

Significant is the fact that BNR has refused to tell us the legal basis of publishing such a devastating press release, or to provide us with a copy of the decision of the press release publication approving, on May 9^th 2000!

It is obvious that no central bank in the world has ever approached to / does not approach such a devastating measure for a commercial bank.

The Joint Report of the two Chambers of Parliament Committees Conclusions

1. On the basis of the data and documents gathered, the two Parliamentary Committees have repeatedly informed both the General Prosecutor's Office attached to the High Court of Cassation and Justice, since the summer of 2001, and the National Anti-Corruption Prosecutor's Office, requesting to carry out the legal measures needed.

2. Thus, on February 13^th 2002, the Committee for the Investigation of Abuse and Fight against Corruption of the Chamber of Deputies, art. 222, 225 and 227 of the Criminal Procedure Code, notified the General Prosecutor’s General Office and the General Inspectorate of Police, stating in concrete terms the actions committed by the group of interest made up of: Arin Stănescu, Călin Andrei Zamfirescu, lawyers - managers of the liquidation company "Assets Reconversion and Valuation", judges Năvală Maria and Negru Cristina from the Bucharest Court - Section VII Commercial, Bogza Mihai, Deputy Governor of BNR, Groza Lucian, liquidators etc., as well as the Fănel Păvalăche statements show - Valeriu Stoica and Flavius ​​Baias, former minister of justice and state secretary at the same ministry.

3. After the arrest of the former government adviser Fănel Păvălache, who, in September 2002, requested us the amount of US $ 4 million for terminating the bankruptcy of BIR within 48 hours, the file was taken over by the National Anti-Corruption Prosecutor's Office under no. 194 / P / 2003, which, by the resolution of February 10^th 2003, started the prosecution in rem, even though the persons involved and their actions were well known and specified by the notification made on February 13^th 2002.

4. As out of the indisputable documents annexed to the Parliament's notification, it was clear that the above mentioned nominees committed actions which constitute offenses that are mentioned and punished by the Penal Code by Law no. 78/2000 regarding the acts of corruption, as well as by the provisions of Law no. 64/1995, such as: association for committing offenses, abuse of office against public interests, fraudulent management, embezzlement etc., emphasizing the fact that the above-named persons associated and initiated the issue of normative acts (Government Emergency Ordinance No. 79 / 1999, Government Emergency Ordinance no 186/1999, Government Ordinance no.118 / 2000) to make their criminal activity appear to be lawful, taking hundreds of billions of ROL from the funds of some banks etc.

5. It is notorious that the owners of the liquidation company "Asset Reconversion and Valuation", lawyers Arin Stănescu, Călin Andrei Zamfirescu, together with BNR Deputy Governor Mihai Bogza, have themselves initiated normative acts to facilitate their criminal activity (GO no. 79/1999, GEO No. 186/1999, GEO No. 118/2000) issued by violating some constitutional provisions.

Also, there should be mentioned the fact that the Romanian Government headed by Mr. Mugur Isărescu, 10 days before the Bucharest Court started the bankruptcy of BIR, issued GEO no. 118/30 June 2000 approving a loan to the Bank Deposit Guarantee Fund.

How was it possible for Mr. Mugur Isarescu to know - on June 30^th 2000, that the Bucharest Court would pronounce on July 10^th 2000 (ten days later) the bankruptcy of BIR?

Here is another proof that the BNR, this time with the obvious complicity of the Romanian Government, has premeditated the bankruptcy of the International Bank of Religions!

6. The violations of the law regarding the manner in which the management of BNR and the liquidators Arin Stănescu and Calin Zamfirescu organized and liquidated the Romanian banks constituted offences falling under art. 10, art. 11(1) and art. 17 of Law no. 78/2000 on the prevention, detection and sanctioning of corruption, as well as in art. 127 index 3 (1) of the Law no. 82/2003, for the approval of GEO no. 38/2002 regarding the modification and completion of Law no. 64/1995 on the  procedure of judicial reorganization and bankruptcy, republished in OJ no. 1066/2004.

Further on we draw attention on extracts from Law no. 64/1995, completed and amended, relevant to the case:

art. 142 (1): The offense of fraudulent management, provided in art. 214 par. 1 of the Criminal Code, shall be punished by imprisonment from 3 to 8 years when committed by the administrator or the liquidator of the debtor's property, as well as by any representative or assigned person.

art. 143 (1): the appropriation, use or dealing on by the administrator or liquidator of the debtor's property, as well as by any representative or assigned person, of the money, valuables or other assets which he manages or administers, represents the offense of embezzlement and is punished by imprisonment from one year to 15 years and the prohibition of certain rights.

(2) if the embezzlement had particularly serious consequences, the punishment is imprisonment from 10 years to 20 years and the prohibition of certain rights.

As shown, the General Prosecutor's Office attached to the High Court of Cassation and Justice and the General Inspectorate of the Police were notified, as of February 13^th 2002, by providing all the information, documents and evidences obtained by the Parliamentary Commissions in this case.

7. It is clear from these evidence that the bankruptcy of BIR was premeditated and organized by the owners of the liquidation company "Assets Reconversion and Valuation", named Arin Stănescu, Călin Andrei Zamfirescu, in complicity with persons from the BNR leadership, with some magistrates within the Section VII Commercial of Bucharest Law Court (judges Maria Navala and Cristina Negru). Different facts: On the night of the Fănel Păvălache flagrant (October 17^th-18^th 2002), Maria Năvală and Arin Stănescu were at a hotel in Malta, where they had a phone call from Fănel Păvălache.

8. It is also notorious that, "through the care" of the vice-governors Emil Iota Ghizari and Mihai Bogza, the aforementioned firm was assigned with the liquidation of all the Romanian banks that were bankrupt.

9. From the information obtained in this file, (vol.2 of the documentary paper of the Chamber of Deputies - "Total War against Corruption in Romania") it was established that some magistrates of the Commercial Section of the Bucharest Court were related to the owners of this firm (close relatives of the magistrates - sons, spouses - being liquidators themselves). Moreover, the same document shows that the managers of the liquidation company have reached the point where they wrote the decisions themselves in the bankruptcy files of the companies they liquidated, and the magistrates only sign these decisions.

10. During the investigations in the file of the former government adviser Fănel Păvălache, it was found that the deliberations of the court decisions in the bankruptcy files took place in the apartment on Tudor Arghezi Street no. 26, 3rd floor ap. 32, or through restaurants ("Café Ole"), at the order and directions of liquidator-lawyer Arin Stănescu, together with senior officials representing the Ministry of Justice and / or the Government.

11. The close relationship between the persons involved in the management of the BNR and the managers of the liquidation company "Assets Reconversion and Valuation" also derives profoundly from their mutual support in courts (the legal counselor of the BNR, Nicoleta Nicolau, acting jointly with the representatives of the liquidators without making an opposition to their actions of devastating the BIR patrimony and to combat the devaluation of its funds by acquiring the so-called "honor", "performance bonuses" etc.),thus demonstrating and proving  their complicity.

12. Thus, under the cover of the liquidation company "Asset Reversion and Valuation", later referred to as "Moore Stephens (RVA)", the aforementioned have taken hundreds of billions of ROL from BIR funds, in various forms (own remunerations, "performance bonuses", "fees" etc.), received commissions, including deposits made from BIR funds – they used BIR assets (offices, cars, office, fixed telephones, mobile phones etc.) in their own interest, all of which clearly constitute undue advantages, and fall under the legal provisions mentioned above.

13. It is also known that the mentioned liquidation firm sold high value BIR assets at ridiculous prices, granted so-called facilities and discounts of hundreds of billions ROL to the bank's claims, producing enormous damage, all of which are acts of corruption or related to the acts of corruption provided and punished by the above mentioned legal norms.

Knowing that as of February 13^th 2002, when the Prosecutor's Office attached to the High Court of Cassation and Justice was notified of this case, the State's competent bodies did not take any action against this group of interests, there could be concluded that certain persons within the spheres of the old but also of the current powers and / or authorities, protect and defend the true high-level corrupted people who consider themselves above the law.

14. The only institution that self-reported about the unlawful acts committed by the BNR in order to bankrupt BIR, was the Supreme Council of National Defense (CSAT), which included on its day of July 17^th 2002, the issues of fraudulent bankruptcy of the International Bank of Religions.

Particularly significant are, in our opinion, the following findings of the Presidential Administration Report no. DSN / 553/2002, on the basis of which the CSAT discussed on July 17^th 2002, the problems of the fraudulent bankruptcy of the International Bank of Religions :

a. "The BIR was put in a delicate situation by the information provided by the BNR to the media, information that had a strong impact among the depositors, leading to massive resource withdrawals, which led BIR to sell state bonds before maturity";

b. " BNR gave BIR the grace stroke through Circular no. 6/2000, point 7, whereby the value of the assigned and not yet paid receivables was passed on "loss", although in the contracts there mentioned laid down staggered collection deadlines. Moreover, Circular no. 6/2000 has been applied retrospectively, interfering with the constitutional principle of laws for non-retroactivity";

c. "The evolution of crises and bank bankruptcy reveal the fact that banking supervision in Romania is totally deficient. The BNR does everything in order to get involved in a surveillance activity, the most serious thing registered in this respect is the "protection" offered by GEO no. 136/2001."

d. "It is equally obvious that the supervision exercised by the BNR has so far proved ineffective, as banks are bankrupt (one at a time) one after another.

The costs supported by the Romanian State for the rehabilitation of banks (over USD 3 billion so far) represent about 7% of GDP. The amount is added to the same high costs imposed by the banking companies for restitution, within certain limits, of the deposits of individuals set up with banks in bankruptcy. "

The NBR leadership learned that during the debates, the CSAT  members found out - on the basis of concrete arguments - that the BNR / Mr. Mugur Isarescu had committed illegalities to facilitate the bankruptcy of the BIR, as well as the fact that the PNA (Mr. Ioan Amariei , Chief Prosecutor) was given the debated materials, with the express indication to initiate the criminal actions that were required.

As he considered himself directly threatened by the CSAT, Mugur Isarescu acted immediately, desperately, in personal relations with Mr. Ioan Amariei, finally succeeding in persuading the latter to conclude - in March 2003 - a secret protocol on the basis of which Mr. Ioan Amariei buried the CSAT's file/ case on the fraudulent bankruptcy of the International Bank of Religions.

The changes that have subsequently occurred in the political leadership of the country have been greatly agreed upon by Mr. Mugur Isarescu because they have allowed him to maneuver/ cointegrate / manipulate - indirectly - a new head of state to order the DNA (Daniel Morar, the chief prosecuter) to cause the failure of any BIR management or BIR shareholders attempt to take legal action in order to establish legality in the fraudulent bankruptcy case of the International Bank of Religions.

15. It is an interesting fact that in some legal environments and circles (law, magistracy, etc.) the idea has been accredited and comments are still being made in the sense that no Romanian authority will dare to take action against those involved in this act of organized crime and institutionalized corruption at a high level because - in essence - it is the family of the former minister of justice Cătălin Predoiu - Călin Zamfirescu being his father-in-law, and from some sources Arin Stănescu being his godfather (deceased).

Moreover, after the appointment of Cătălin Predoiu as minister of justice on February 29^th 2008, the Zamfirescu - Racoţi - Predoiu law firm, representing the liquidation firm, sent addresses to the courts using the above mentioned header and the lawyers representing the firm in the courtrooms pronounced loudly and emphasizing the name of Cătălin Predoiu and his function as minister of justice to alert / torment the judges.

FRAUDULENT BANKRUPTCY OF  THE BANK OF RELIGIONS,

A LEGAL MONSTROSITY

Due to the fact that the ex- government adviser, Fănel Pavalache has unveiled in his statements the names of the heads of the " Bank Bankruptcy Mafia" - "The evil triumvirate" , considering the ex- Minister of Justice, Valeriu Stoica, as the most important person in this matter, we show how his justice - in 2000 and the following years - applied the legal provisions  in  the beginning of the premeditated bankruptcy of the International Bank of Religions:

 1. On June 29^th 2000, under No. XI/G/133, the National Bank of Romania - the Governor's Cabinet issued a written application to the Bucharest Court - Commercial Section requesting the bankruptcy procedure for the International Bank of Religions.

In this document, the National Bank of Romania is represented by Mr. Emil Iota Ghizari as "Governor", the document mentioning as Signatory, "Governor Emil Iota Ghizari", but the signature belongs to another unidentified person.

Regarding the quality of "Governor of BNR" of Mr. Emil Iota Ghizari, the following aspects are to be made:

 a) By the address no. 2203 of June 17, 2002 The Autonomous Registry "Official Gazette", states the following:

 "We inform you that in December 1999 - December 2000, a decision of the Romanian Parliament by which Emil Iota Ghizari was appointed as Governor of the National Bank of Romania was not published in the Official Gazette of Romania" (see the document no.5)

 b) The Legislative Council, by the address No. R/931 of 18.09.2002, states that:

"According to art. 34 par. 3 of the Law no. 101/1998 on the Statute of the National Bank of Romania, with the subsequent amendments and completions, the members of the Board of Directors of the National Bank of Romania, nominated by the executive management, are appointed by the Parliament, at the proposal of the standing committees of the two Chambers of Parliament.

"Article 36 (5) of the same Act stipulates that if the Governor is absent or unable to act, he will be replaced by the First Deputy Governor."

"By corroborating the two normative texts, the following aspects are relevant: in the event of the occurrence of one of the situations provided for in Article 36 (5) of Law No. 101/1998, the First Deputy Governor of the National Bank of Romania replaces the governor, and it cannot be considered that during this period, the first deputy governor of the National Bank of Romania was appointed as governor of this institution, because there was no act of appointment in the respective position, published in the Official Gazette of Romania, fact confirmed by the address 2203/ 17.06.2002 of the Autonomous Registry "Official Gazette" .

As a conclusion, according to the provisions of the Autonomous Registry "Official Gazette" and the Legislative Council, Mr. Emil Iota Ghizari was never invested by the Parliament as governor of the National Bank of Romania, based on the provisions of art. 34 point 3 of the Law no. 101 regarding the BNR Statute.

According to the provisions of art. 83 par. 3 Civil Procedure Code, the legal representative is compelled to prove his quality, but in this case, Mr. Emil Iota Ghizari did not and could not do this, which is why the aforementioned request of the BNR is nullified.

 2. In addition to the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, Art. 30 of the Law no. 64/1995 and art. 18 of GEO no. 186/1999 provide that:

"After filing an application, the Chairman of the Court will immediately nominate the syndic judge”, according to art. 8,

and art. 8 of the cited law states that

 "the syndic judge is nominated, for each case, by the Chairman of the Court”,

the same regulation being found in Art. 3 par. 2 of GEO no. 186/1999 amending and completing Law no. 83/1998 which provides that:

"The syndic judge shall be nominated, in each case, by the Chairman of the Court ..."

As an incredible but true fact: the request filed by the National Bank of Romania regarding the bankruptcy of BIR was not registered in the General Ledger of the Bucharest Court, on the respective file being glued a small strip of paper on which it was holographic written the stamp nr. "5615/12.03.2000", without mentioning at the special heading, any number of the respective document or the body that transmitted it, any number of the BNR's request, (on March 12^th 2000, there wasn’t even issued any request of BNR regarding the bankruptcy of BIR, the BNR's document being dated – June 29^th 2000).On the page of the General Ledger it is obviously visible: the existence of the bondage of the sheet of paper that was written "5615/ 12.03.2000", as well as, erasures, scraps and additions, certain indications of material forgery in official documents.

The fact that the BNR document was not registered with the Court was found on the spot by DNA prosecutor Florin Târnacop, who has drawn up a report in this respect.

Under these circumstances, the request issued by the BNR has only a material appearance of legal act, but, not being a part of the Bucharest Court, cannot be regarded as a procedural act, thus attracting the non-existence of this request.

Related to this situation, it is clear that the request of the National Bank of Romania on initiating the bankruptcy of BIR, not being registered in the General Ledger, the court was not notified; consequently the court was not invested in a decision in this case and therefore it was incompetent.

3. However, although the request of the National Bank of Romania was not registered before the Court of First Instance, and the court was not notified and therefore not invested, on the same day of June 29^th 2000, there were two written resolutions of the court, but none of which belonged to the judge service of the day (TMB Section VI address), as it follows:

- a resolution, in the upper right-hand side, with the content: «Pr. 29.06.2000. The file will be presented to the Bucharest Court Chairman for appointing the syndic judge. It is cancelled the stamp fee of 300.000 lei and the judicial fee of 50.000 lei »- undesciphrable signature;

- a resolution, at the top left, with the content: "Pr. 29.06.2000. The debtor,  the ORC and BNR will be notified by a procedural agent and by displaying at the court's door" - the signature belonging to magistrate Negru Cristina.

So the request of the BNR was drafted on June 29^th 2000. How could it be registered at the Court on March 12^th 2000 ???

The mystery of non-filing the request was elucidated during the investigation of the ex government adviser Fănel Pavalache: the request was taken by Arin Stănescu from the National Bank of Romania and handed to a judge at the "Zet" restaurant located behind the Bucharest Court of Appeal, and forgetting to register it until the day before the trial.

Even today, it can be noticed that there is no registration stamp of the Court on the application.

Taking into account the mandatory provisions regarding the competence of judges, contained in Law no. 64/1995 and GEO no. 186/1999, investigations were carried out regarding the nomination of magistrate Negru Cristina, "in order to solve a petition for legal action, which did not exist in the Court Ledger". Under these circumstances, it was established that the magistrate was not nominated for the case, in accordance with the legal provisions (the address of the Commercial Section of the Bucharest Court and the report the Court of First Instance, on the Part II and III of File No 5615/2000).

The provisions stipulated in the two special laws (Law No. 64/1995 and Emergency Government Ordinance no 186/1999) are mandatory provisions regarding the competence of magistrates in the case of the reorganization and bankruptcy procedures of commercial companies.

By the resolution on June 29^th 2000 of a non-existing request in a lawsuit, the magistrate Cristina Negru, who was not invested in judging the petition and did not attend the court, performed  the first procedural act, by quoting the parties.

Article 5 of the Civil Code states that:

 "Laws on the interest to public order and good morals cannot be derogated by conventions or particular provisions",

Therefore, the jurisdiction of courts and magistrates is a matter of public order.

4. On July 10^th 2000, through Sentence no. 4461/2000, provided in File no. 5615/ 12.03.2000 (????) when the BNR request did not even exist, the same magistrate, Negru Cristina - without having the competence required by the law - activated the bankruptcy procedure of BIR,  on the basis of a petition for a lawsuit that was not registered before at the court.

Although by BIR appeal it was requested to have specialized expertise, the objection of unconstitutionality of GEO no. 186/1999 being mentioned, the magistrate Negru Cristina rejected the BIR requests and initiated the bankruptcy procedure.

In the sentence, Magistrate Negru Cristina, not legally invested in this case, by  misinterpreting the truth, and thus lying, shows that the National Bank of Romania is the creditor of the International Bank of Religions, which is absolutely unreal, since BIR has never borrowed any money from the BNR .

Also, the magistrate, Negru Cristina, indicates that BIR is in the payments cessation, without mentioning which were the 30 days granted according to the law,  in which no payments were made; in fact, BIR made payments until July 27^th 2000, when the group of liquidators forced the bank's leadership to leave and occupied its offices by force.

Article 105 paragraph 1 of The Civil Procedure Code provides that:

 "Procedural acts performed by an incompetent judge are null and void".

In the application of these provisions, it is obvious that the procedural acts performed by Judge Negru Cristina without the jurisdiction required by the law, on the basis of an application for a non-existent petition, are null and void.

In fact, Sentence no. 4461/2000 is null, also due to the provisions of art. 258 par. 1 Code of Civil Procedure, applicable on July 10^th 2000, which stipulates that:

 “When the majority of the judges has been assembled, they will immediately issue and sign  the decision, under the penalty of nullity, together with the clerk, thus being also revealed the opinions of the judges remained in the minority.”S

However, the handwritten minute of SentenceSS no. 4461/2000 was not signed by the clerk, who was aware of the existing illegalities, which, according to the above mentioned provisions, attracts both the nullity of the minute and the nullity of the Sentence.

So the sentence that initiated the BIR bankruptcy procedure was pronounced:

- on the basis of a non-existent petition for legal proceedings, not pending before the court;

- by the court's lack of competence, because it was not notified, it was not invested in the examination of the application, so the court was incompetent;

- by a magistrate not invested according to legal provisions, therefore without legal competence;

- based on a minute of the device absolutely null.

Under these circumstances, the Sentence no. 4461 / 10.07.2000 of the Bucharest Court - Commercial Section where the International Bank of Religion was declared bankrupt is ope legis, null by law .

5. Refering to the decisions pronounced after the replacement of magistrate Negru Cristina in Case no. 5615 / 12.03.2000 by other magistrates, the following are to be mentioned:

At the insistence of the representatives of the shareholders of the International Bank of Religions, Magistrate Negru Cristina was replaced in the named file, which was managed by the magistrates Năvala Maria, Florescu Elena, Zamfir Maria, Bumbulut Anca, Dumitrescu Gabriela and others, who executed the procedural acts.

Further on, we will only refer to the magistrate Maria Năvală, who has solved the re-judgment of a series of appeals submitted by the shareholders representatives after the Court of Appeal of Bucharest, admitting their appeal, quashed the decision given by the magistrate Negru Cristina.

Verifying the nomination of Mrs. Năvala Maria in the so-called File no. 5615 / March 12^th 2000, a copy of the nomination was obtained, with the surprising finding that this legal act of procedure is absolutely null, being a forgery.

Thus, this conclusion drafting does not comply with the provisions of art. 261 and 268 of the Civil Procedure Code, because there are not mentioned the names of the judge (chairman) or of the clerk, at the names of the parties appearing in block capitals a certain creditor "B.M.R", and the conclusion is not motivated as stipulated in art. 268, paragraph 4, of Civil Procedure Code, etc.

What is interesting, however, is that the signature of the conclusion dated May 15^th 2001 belongs to Mrs. Maria Huza, the President of the Bucharest Court, or, according to CSM (Superior Council of Magistracy) notification no. 7256/ SR/ 2005 issued on 10^th of June 2005, the person was promoted to the position of President of the Bucharest Court on June 1^st 2001, through CSM Decision no. 154 / 22.05.2001.

Art. 106 par. 1 Civil Procedure Code states that:

 "The annulment of a procedural act also entails the nullity of the following acts, as they cannot have a stand-alone existence."

So, the acts performed by the magistrates who made subsequent judgments after the replacement of the magistrate Negru Cristina, who does not have the competence required by the law, cannot have a stand-alone existence, these being null and void.

6. The legal acts and the operations carried out by the liquidators of «Asset Reconversion and Valuation» / “Moore Stephens RVA” over the International Bank of Religions were therefore committed on the basis of a legally null ruling because, as it has been shown, on a non-existent petition for a non-invested court, by an non-invested or incompetent court, by an incompetent judge, by a minute drawn up in violation of the legal provisions.

Even if in a school hypothesis, the validity of the Sentence no. 4461/2000 is accepted, the following should be taken into consideration:

- Article 3 paragraph 3 letter c of GEO no. 186/1999 provides that the main tasks of the syndic judge are:

- "the appointment, by decision of the liquidator, assets appraisal, activity oversight..."

- and art. 7 par. 1, the same act stipulates that:

- "in the case of initiating bankruptcy procedure, the syndic judge ... shall designate a liquidator on the advice of the National Bank of Romania..."

- by Sentence no. 4461 of 10.07.2000, the magistrate Negru Cristina designated the company "Assets Reconversion and Valuation" as the liquidator of BIR, without having the BNR approval, as stipulated by GEO no 86/1999, this notice being obtained only later, on July 19^th 2000, signed by Mr. Emil Iota Ghizari, also as a "governor", a quality in which, as shown above, was never invested by Parliament.

In order to demonstrate that the BNR notice for the liquidator appointment had to be prior to the court designation and that only after obtaining this notice, the liquidator's attributions were to be established, we will show that, by Sentence no. 721/ 08.02.2000 of the same Bucharest Court of First Instance - Commercial Section, where Bankcoop bankruptcy procedure was initiated, on page 8, it is stated that:

"In order to appoint the liquidator and to obtain the opinion of the National Bank of Romania in this respect, it is granted the term of February 15^th 2000, and the liquidator's attributions and his remuneration are to be determined."

It is also stated that the powers of the liquidator are established by art. 10 lit a-q, of GEO no. 186/1999, normative act that governed bankruptcy procedure of banks, at the time.

- The Magistrate Negru Cristina has ruled, by sentence, the taking over by the liquidator of the attributions stipulated by art. 9 of GEO no. 186/1999, by which it was explicitly stressed that the liquidator should draft a single report – Attention! One report! - containing:

 "the situation of the contracts concluded by the debtor, the patrimonial transfers, the commercial operations, the guarantees submitted by the bank, the situation of the bank property claims  resulting from the assets or money transfers, made before the bankruptcy procedure started" etc.

 (these being the provisions of Article 9 of GEO no.186/ 1999), the deadline for submitting this report was September 4^th 2000.

- So through the device of Sentence no. 4461 of July 10^th 2000, the magistrate Negru Cristina did not order the liquidator to take over any of the attributions stipulated in art. 10 of GEO no. 186/1999. which only provides for the letter "l" - "the liquidation of the assets from the debtor bank's capital".

This fact is confirmed and reinforced even by the device report, holographic written and signed only by the magistrate, which states: "(art.10 after completion)" – the text was afterwards slashed and sealed with her signature.

It should be noted that by any other decision, of any other Romanian court, the liquidator «Asset Reconversion and Valuation» did not have to liquidate the BIR patrimony.

It is worth pointing out that in the sentence that led to the bankruptcy of BIR, the court, lying, noted that the National Bank of Romania is the creditor of the International Bank of Religions. The BNR legal advisers asserted in all court proceedings, this unrealistic fact, because BIR did not borrowed from the BNR, any money. Also, the same representatives of the BNR asserted that on July 10^th 2000, BIR would have been in the cessation of payments, another unrealistic fact.

Although BNR was insistently and repeatedly asked to name, in writing, to the representative of the BIR shareholders, Prof. Toma Bălăşoiu, the value of the amount that BIR would have borrowed from the BNR, the National Bank of Romania, ignoring the legal provisions, did not give an answer.

After a long and expensive trial, at the request of Prof. Toma Bălăşoiu, BNR was bound by the High Court of Cassation and Justice to respond, and did that only in 2017, clearly stating: "The National Bank of Romania was never the BIR creditor"  .

Also, Prof. Toma Bălăşoiu, the shareholder's representative, obtained from BNR the BIR account statements from July 1^st to July 27th 2000, showing that the International Bank of Religions made payments throughout this period, so the court Sentence no. 4461 was based on the lie that on July 10^th 2000 the BIR would have ceased payments.

But the legal effects of the liar sentence have occurred. The International Bank of Religions was bankrupt by lies - that it would be the debtor of the BNR and that on July  10^th 2000 the BIR would have been in ceasing of payments, when it actually made payments until July 27^th 2000. This is the date when a taskforce of the liquidators - Arin Stănescu and Călin Zamfierscu - removed the legal management of the bank from the BIR headquarters, without receiving the bank’s patrimony and treasury on inventory and signature, or determining with the bank's administrators the balance of assets and liabilities, they simply took possession of the bank.

Only in the treasury of the bank there were values over USD 100 million, precious metals and stones of over 35 thousand karats, gold ingots, high value jewelry etc. The keys of the treasury were taken by Arin Stanescu without any signed report on the values ​​there.

The BIR precious stones (sapphire, rubies, emeralds - all polished), of more than six million dollars value, were placed in containers at Fortis Bank in Belgium and the number of the containers was taken also by Arin Stănescu.

* * *

Despite the flagrant violations of the law on the way in which the bankruptcy procedure of BIR was initiated by the magistrate Negru Cristina, the provisions of art. 247 of the Law no. 31/1990, on 27 July 2000 the liquidator occupied all the BIR offices.

Having the consent of magistrate Negru Cristina, and later on, of the other judges who handled File no. 5615 / 12.03.2000, by committing the most serious abuses and illegalities, the liquidator acted as if it were ordered by the court, attributions of liquidation of the bank (stipulated in article 10 of GEO no 186/1999), employing remunerated staff on the bank's payroll, making huge expenses on BIR founds (hundreds of billions of ROL) on their own fees, salaries and so called "performance bonuses", alienated the bank's assets at ridiculous prices, granted discounts hundreds of billions of ROL, he used BIR funds and assets (real estate, cars, telephones, etc.) for his own benefit, receiving ROL 130 billion, only until March 31^st 2004, and the total amount of the fees and the amounts spent by the liquidator, on December 31^st 2015, to over ROL 800 billion, the BIR assets being liquidated, without the presence of the shareholder's representative when the operations were performed.

For a more clear view, we present data and figures from the Liquidator's Report on Receipts and Expenses from July 10^th 2000 to August 31^st 2001 submitted on the Bucharest Court File no. 5615/2000:

"During the period July 10^th 2000 to August 31^st 2001, sums of money were collected in the amount of lei 580,374,263,000".

If, on July 10^th 2000, BIR was in the cessation of payments, how is it that, starting with the same date, for one year, over ROL 580 billion were collected?

The same Report of the liquidator shows:

"During the period July 10^th 2000 to August 31^st 2001, the expenditures amounted to ROL 211,135,361,000."

"The fee for the liquidator amounts to 55,251,629,837 lei".

Summing up the two digits we find that almost 50% of the proceeds were consumed by the liquidator.

Another example:

In the Report of the liquidator lodged at the court on September 5, 2002 it is stated that:

"Out of the total amount of ROL 84,787,851,660, collected between June 27^th 2002 and August 31^st 2002, there were made expenses of ROL 28,125,264,685, and the liquidator's fee was of ROL 8,071,803,478."

It has been shown above that the expenditures are the employees’ salaries, "liquidity bonuses" etc.

Everything was a real robbery over the funds of the International Bank of Religions in a generous manner and having the agreement of the syndic judges who were slaves of the interest group called the "Bank Bankruptcy Mafia".

Simultaneously with the huge expenses made by the liquidator, they granted discounts and other facilities to BIR receivables, in the order of hundreds of billions of ROL.

For example, we present extracts from the Report of the liquidator no. 17:

"The total facilities approved by the liquidator in the period July 10^th 2000 – April 30^th 2002 amount to over 546 billion lei", and the bank's assets (real estate, land, etc.) were alienated at ridiculous prices of 20-50% of the book value, real value or market value (see document 11)

The robbery made by the liquidator on the BIR patrimony is also asserted by the following example: the sale of 15 ha. land in the town of Breaza - Prahova, worth more than 6 million dollars: one square meter of land was sold at that time with USD 40-50; the 15 ha. were sold at $ 0.25 / sq.m. Who was the happy buyer? None other than the liquidator Arin Stanescu's driver!

The criminal complaint filed at the DNA (National Anticorruption Department)- Ploieşti, by the representative of the BIR shareholders was dismissed by the head of the territorial structure DNA - Prahova, a certain prosecutor Onea, in present being sued by the Judicial Inspection for serious deviations from the deontological terms of the profession of prosecutor.

All this happened under the protection and with the knowledge of the syndic judge Negru Cristina and other magistrates, while it remains a curiosity that after the initiating and supervision of the BIR bankruptcy in the first years, Mrs. Negru Cristina was promoted as judge of the Bucharest Court of Appeal - perhaps as a reward.

Article 105 paragraph 2 The Code of Civil Procedure provides that:

"The acts performed with the non-observance of the legal forms or by an incompetent official shall be declared null ... if this has caused the party an injury that can only be removed by revoking them ..."

7. Based on the numerous memoirs of the Romanian and foreign shareholders of the International Bank of Religions and their own findings, the Committees for the Survey of Abuses and Fighting Corruption in the two Chambers of Parliament elaborated, as stated above, a Joint Report on the Fraudulent Bankruptcy of the International Bank of Religions, which was submitted to the Permanent Bureaus of the two Chambers of Parliament, on September 21^st 2004.

Although it was submitted to the two Permanent Bureaus of the two Chambers in order to be debated and approved by Parliament's Plenum after putting in place of the new political power, in 2004, this Joint Report now lies in the drawers of Parliament. The Parliament leadership, at the time, has easily given up to the desperate pressures applied by Mugur Isarescu, the National Bank of Romania governor.

 A similar situation occurred regarding the annulment appeal, promoted by the Romanian Prosecutor General in the case of BIR bankruptcy, which stated that:

 "The sentences were pronounced with the essential violation of law, which led to the wrong decision of the case, and that they were obviously not sound" .

The appeal was dismissed by an agreed pre-deliberation at the "Café Olé" Restaurant in Bucharest - behind the "White Church" (volume II of Parliament's paper). Enigmatic is the information that the Chairman of the Court (Eugenia Lohan) has postponed the pronouncement because she wasn’t willing to accept a bribe that was paid half a dollar and a half in Romanian currency, as Valeriu Stoica and liquidators tried to pay. The appeal dismissal was pronounced only after the bribe was fully paid in hard currency!

It is worth mentioning that, in 2003, the former Minister of Justice, Ms Rodica Mihaela Stănoiu, informed in writing Mr. Dan Lupaşcu, Secretary General of the Superior Council of Magistracy and President of the Bucharest Court of Appeal, that:

"From the verifications carried out at the Bucharest Court - Section VII Bankruptcy, related to the investigation of file no. 5615/2000 on the International Bank of Religions bankruptcy, there were drawn conclusions that highlight deficiencies ..."

Neither Mr. Dan Lupascu nor the CSM have sketched or expressed the slightest interest in starting any legal proceedings to assert what would be the deficiencies found by the Ministry of Justice in the BIR bankruptcy case!

 9. During the investigation, the former government adviser Fănel Păvălache, arrested and convicted for lobbyism, himself a liquidator, confirmed, through written statements, that the above mentioned interest group was established as of 1997, for the purpose of the Romanian banks premeditated bankruptcy, that this group managed to issue normative acts to cover its criminal activity and to make the operations look legal, and that in its criminal activity, the group managed to attract certain magistrates who gave decisions with disrespect for the law.

10. The BIR bankruptcy planning is obvious, even from the GEO no. 118/2000, signed by the former Deputy Governor Mihai Bogza, who, starting with the end of March 2000, was certain that the International Bank of Religions would be bankrupt by July 2000, which was the purpose of establishing special supervision on January 15^th 2000 on BIR.

This was confirmed by the fact that, as it was shown, the BIR bankruptcy petition was drafted on June 29^th 2000, but not registered with the Bucharest Court, for the next day, June 30^th 2000, to be issued GEO no. 118/2000, and the BIR bankruptcy to be initiated, under the unlawful terms mentioned, only ten days after the request was drafted, respectively, on July 10^th 2000.

11. In order to get out of the crisis, intentionally caused by the National Bank of Romania, by imposing restrictive measures on the bank’s object of activity, the management of the International Bank of Religions requested, through repeated correspondence, according to the provisions of Law no. 101/1998 on BNR's Statute, granting a short-term bridge-credit of ROL 300 billion, mentioning that this will avoid a financial effort of the Deposit Guarantee Fund in the banking system, exceeding ROL 1,900 billion.

The legal framework regulating the loans that may be granted by the BNR to commercial banks, for the protection of the systemic risk, is the one stipulated by art. 20 and 27 of Law no. 101/1998 on Statute of the BNR.

 Thus, art. 20 of the Law no.10/1998 refers to BNR lending to banks, stipulating:

"Within its monetary, currency, credit and payment policy, the National Bank of Romania may grant loans to banks for periods not exceeding 90 days, guaranteed by: government securities ...; bills of exchange and promissory notes ...; warrants or deposit receipts ....; deposits with the National Bank of Romania ... consisting of any assets that it can sell, buy or trade",

 and art. 27 of the same law provides that:

 "for the purpose of limiting the risk of banking and payment system, the National Bank of Romania may also grant to banks other unsecured or guaranteed loans by other assets than those provided by Article 20, exceptionally and on a case-by-case basis."

Thus, as of April 28^th 2000, by letter no. P/249, the BIR leadership addressed to the National Bank of Romania, respectively, "Governor" Emil Iota Ghizari, pointing out that:

"Due to some measures taken to reduce the deposits from individuals (the measure imposed by BNR, n.n.) and a malicious atmosphere created on the bank", "BIR faces a temporary lack of liquidity".

The aforementioned address also stated that:

"Drastic measures have been taken to reduce expenditure, to increase the recovery of receivables" etc., and that due to the "limitation of the operations and restrictions imposed on the bank" (limitations and restrictions imposed by BNR, n.n.) some economic agents transferred their accounts to other banks."

Finally, the National Bank of Romania has been asked to provide a short-term loan of ROL 300 billion, as stated by the legal provisions mentioned above, which would have led to balancing the payments with receipts and, implicitly, to increasing customer confidence, stressing the fact that the granting of this credit would avoid paying depositors by the Bank Deposit Guarantee Fund, with a sum of approx. ROL 1,900 billion.

 It was also required to allow BIR to resume normal business of attracting sources, as well as resuming lending, timetable reevaluation, rescheduling, etc. (disclaiming the restrictive measures imposed by BNR).

On May 5^th 2000, BNR, in address no. 684, under the signature of Mr. Deputy Governor Mihai Bogza, informed BIR about the rejection by the BNR Board of Directors of the application for this loan.

On May8th 2000, by letter no. P/254, the BIR leadership again addressed the BNR governor, Emil Iota Ghizari, the vice-governors Mihai Bogza and Cristian Popa, as the BIR faces a liquidity crisis due to the public rumours, reiterating the request to approve the requested loan of ROL 300 billion, in order to avoid the financial effort of the Guarantee Fund to pay the deposits of individuals of approx. ROL 1,900 billion.

By address no. 434 of May 19^th 2000, BNR responded to this request, pointing out that the granting of the ROL 300 billion loan, for 30 days, was not authorized.

In order to support the BIR proposals, its leadership also notified the Supervision Division, on May 15^th 2000, via address no. P/268, asking to join the BIR request.

At this address of BIR, the Director of the Supervision Division, Nicolae Cinteza, former member of the BIR Census Board ever since its establishment, puts the following resolution: "Dreams!”, signed and submitted it to his deputy, Adrian Cosmescu.

On May 19, 2000, through address no. 279, BIR once again addressed the "Governor" of the National Bank of Romania, Mr. Iota Emil Ghizari, and the Deputy Governor, Mr. Mihai Bogza, mentioning that:

"The bank is not in a state of insolvency, that such a bank with a comprehensive network of 110 subsidiaries all over the country, well-equipped and functional, for which special investment efforts have been made, would not be justified to be left in a state of bankruptcy and liquidation",

proposing as a solution for avoiding the financial effort of approx. ROL 1,900 billion, the Bank Deposit Guarantee Fund:

"That it would be more appropriate for BIR to be taken over in the administration of this Fund for a certain period", a mechanism used in other countries, applied to some banks that were in temporary difficulty.

The National Bank of Romania replied on May 29^th 2000, through the address no. 774, under the signature of the same vice-governor Mihai Bogza, that it was decided to reject the BIR proposal.

It is clear from the above mentioned that the International Bank of Religions has taken all due diligence to persuade and convince the decision-makers (the BNR leadership) to support it, in order to avoid the bankruptcy procedure and, in particular, to avoid Bank Deposit Guarantee Fund payment of approx. ROL 1,900 billion.

If there were no other interests, the management of the BNR, which, according to Article 2 (2) of the Law no. 101 on The BNR Statute, should ensure the normal functioning of the banking system, and in Art. 20 and 27 of the same law, as a lender of last resort, it can grant loans to commercial banks, BNR would have had the possibility to legally grant the credit requested by BIR, in order to avoid payment by the Deposit Guarantee Fund in the banking system of an amount of approximately ROL 1.900 billion.

Analyzing the evolution of events, the following are to be mentioned:

 - on January 15^th 2000, BIR did not face difficulties with a net positive asset of ROL 186.2 billion and an immediate liquidity of ROL 1,046 billion;

- However, the BNR imposed special supervision on it, restricting its object of activity, (prohibiting the attraction of sources, banning credit granting, banning timetable evaluation, rescheduling etc.), measures which led to massive withdrawals of sources and to the large customers that left the bank. And, finally, the measures led to the decline in net assets, which from positive, at the beginning  of January 2000, became negative (minus ROL 18.7 billion) on March 31th 2000.

  - what doubt can there be about the fact that instituting the special surveillance over BIR in January 2000 was not done only with the purpose to prepare the conditions for declaring bankruptcy?

  - after the BNR acted in bad faith to create an image crisis for BIR and deteriorate its indicators, the BIR's legal steps to obtain a credit could no longer have an effect, because the National Bank of Romania itself did not intend to support BIR, but just to initiate bankruptcy proceedings.

This fact is confirmed, as it was shown, even by the GEO Notification no. 118, prepared as early as March 2000.

The BIR interventions were meaningless for BNR, and taken even as a mockery, so on June 30^th 2000, BNR issued Government Emergency Ordinance no. 118 by which the Romanian Government approved the granting of a loan of ROL 1,500 billion to the Guarantee Fund, for the bankruptcy to be initiated.

12. The BIR's premeditated bankruptcy case is undoubtedly a legal monstrosity. All abuses and flagrant violations in this case have been committed by the magistrates in bad faith and/ or willful misconduct, resulting in serious harm to BIR shareholders and creditors.

According to the National Anticorruption Department, by Directive dated on February 04^th 2008, the damage caused to BIR shareholders rises to over USD 400 million.

Through numerous memoirs, the case has been brought to the attention of all European authorities. Some of the amendments referring to the high level corruption, in the European Commission's 2004 Country Report on Romania, relied on the BIR case, so the Commissioner for Enlargement, Mr Olli Rehn, looked particularly into the evolution of its solution.

Having noted that in Romania, the competent authorities do not dare, do not have the courage, or they are forbidden to take legal action in this case, recently, representatives of the BIR shareholders have addressed the GRECO Secretariat (Group of States Against Corruption) of the Council of Europe, requesting that the fraudulent BIR bankruptcy, a case of organized crime and high-level institutionalized corruption, which has been notified to the competent Romanian authorities even by the Romanian Parliament itself, has been shifted to investigation from the National Anticorruption Department of Romania to a similar body in another European country.

Under the circumstances, the provisions of art. 52 par. 1 of the Romanian Constitution, stipulate that:

 "A person who’s rights or legitimate interest were damaged by a public authority, by an administrative act or by not solving a claim within a legal term, is entitled to obtain the recognition of his rights..."

par. 3 of the same article states that:

"The state is patrimonial accountable for damages caused by judicial errors."

The DNA Directive of February 4^th 2008 states: the damage caused to the BIR amounts to over USD 400 million

The File no. 194/P/2003 is still at the National Anticorruption Department, a criminal case against the entire stakeholder group involved in fraudulent bankruptcy of the International Bank of Religions covered up “by accident”, after the appointment of Mr. Cătălin Predoiu as Minister of Justice, when his family law and liquidation firms being directly involved in the BIR case.

The calendar of some "simple coincidences" in File no. 194/P/2003 regarding the fraudulent bankruptcy of BIR, in the DNA instrumentation:

On September 26^th 2006, the ICCJ - Criminal Section, admits the appeal of the BIR Board of Directors (signed by the BIR President) and, by the final decision no. 5515, approves the prosecution in personam of the interest group (BIR liquidators) - Călin Zamfirescu, Arin Stănescu etc.

On February 21^st 2007, based on the decision no. 5515 of 26.09.2006 of the HCCJ - Criminal Section, by DNA Resolution, it is initiated the criminal prosecution of the nominated accused persons, for the acts provided by art. 11 Law no. 78/2000 and art. 246 Criminal Code.

On February 4^th 2008, by Ordinance, DNA prosecutor Maria Trandabat comes to the conclusion that the acts committed by the group's members are more serious and requires a change of legal framing into aggravating. The Ordinance notes:

 "Hereby I find: According to the resolution of February 21^st 2007, at 9.30 am, it was decided to start the criminal prosecution against ..... (the nomination of the suspects) and it was noted that, by abusively exercising their duties, during 2000-2003, they produced a material damage of more than $ 400 million for BIR."

We underline the particularly important fact that the DNA Directive of February 4^th 2008 is still in force at present, because it was not denied by Daniel Morar, the chief prosecutor of the DNA, and respectively, it has not been denied in accordance with the provisions of art. 304 of C.P.P., which states:

"When the prosecutor finds that an act or a procedural measure of the criminal investigation body is not given in compliance with the legal provisions or is unfounded, he or she shall refuse to motivate it, ex officio, or based on the complaint of the person concerned".

According to this legal provision, the Ordinance recognizing the International Bank of Religions loss of over USD 400 million, produced by the interest group organized by the two lawyers, is well founded.

On February 8^th 2008, Fănel Păvălache, summoned by the DNA, confirms in a statement that the data and facts he described on 30 pages, called by the prosecutor of the case "notes given in the preventive arrest" – being in fact, a denunciation – were obtained from his associate, Arin Stănescu and his close relatives. "

On February 29^th 2008, Mr. Cătălin Predoiu, the son in law of the accused Calin Zamfirescu and the god-son of the other accused Ain Stănescu, is appointed Minister of Justice.

On March 11^th 2008 Călin Zamfirescu, the father-in-law of the new minister, Cătălin Predoiu, declared in the daily "Jurnalul Naţional" that "DNA will soon remove from criminal prosecution all the 14 accused criminals."

On April 24^th 2008, the same prosecutor Maria Trandabat pronounces the removing from the criminal prosecution Ordinance for all the accused. In our country "prosecutors operate under the authority of the minister of justice."

On June 15^th 2010, Ion Popescu, the president of the BIR, who was willingly assigned the status of a bank official, who insists in all courts to apply the law, is convicted of "abuse of office".

Reason: In 1999 some subsidiaries of BIR assigned receivables; there was no harm to anyone because even from I.P. the guarantees of receivables remained under the BIR mortgage, but in 2006, after I.P. obtained the ICCJ's decision ordering the commencement of criminal prosecution in personam, against the interest group, the DNA considered the assignments as offenses.

Although he had not signed any assignment contract and no injury had been incurred to anyone, I.P. was convicted and executed absolutely innocent, by 941 days of imprisonment, in order not to disturb within courts, the relatives of the Minister of Justice at that time, Mr. Cătălin Predoiu.

CONCLUSION OF THE PARLIAMENT OF ROMANIA

Premeditated bankruptcy and robbery liquidation of the International Bank of Religions – an Organized Crime and Institutionalized Corruption Act

*) Extract from the Joint Report of the Parliamentary Committees of the two Chambers of Parliament;

"According to Art. 58 (14) 1 of the Chamber of Deputies Regulation, the Committee on Abuse Survey, Fighting Corruption and Petitions, carried out more than three years of thorough research, checkings, and hearings on the situation created at the International Bank of Religions.

The results of these researches and verifications, supplemented by specialists' expertise, led to a clear conclusion that in this case we are in the face of an organized crime and institutionalized corruption act.

It is underlined that the bankruptcy of several Romanian banks took place during the period 1996-2000.

It has been established with certainty that a group of interests, consisting of some persons such as lawyers Arin Stănescu, Călin Andrei Zamfirescu, Flavius ​​Baias and others, along with some persons from the leadership of the National Bank of Romania (Emil Iota Ghizari, Mihai Bogza) and others, with the complicity of some magistrates within different courts, by issuing normative acts suitable to their own interests, managed to cover the premeditating acts and the liquidation of the named bank, by a real robbery ..."

Although the Joint Report was submitted to the Permanent Bureaus of the two Chambers of Parliament, in a draft decision, from September 21^st 2004 (see document nr.11) until the present day, was not submitted to the plenary debate and approval.

Interesting to know:

The International Bank of Religions is still under the control of the liquidator. After 18 years from the opening of the bankruptcy procedure, the BIR operates and continues to collect claims.

Moreover, as of July 10^th 2000 - the date of bankruptcy initiation- the BIR functioned as a bank, without attracting sources or granting loans.

The Report of the Banking Deposit Guarantee Fund for 2016 states that until December 31^st 2015, out of the total assets of ROL 2.130 billion, there was collected the amount of ROL 1,740 billion, from which the liquidator had spent the amount of ROL 800 billion, representing his own fees, salaries, performance bonuses, other liquidation expenses.

It should be noted, however, that during the 18 years since bankruptcy was declared, the liquidator also granted facilities and discounts on receivables of over ROL 300 billion.

The same FGDB Report mentions that during 2014-2015 FGDB recovered money from a single bank: the International Bank of Religions.

A natural question arises:

How is BIR declared in bankruptcy on July 10^th 2000 when it does still work today, in 2018 ???!!!