Presumed Guilty Works for Anti-corruption Prosecutors Indicting Former PM Adrian Nastase

Many so-called political commentators and pundits ruled, prior to a court ruling, that former PM and Social Democrat Party president Adrian Nastase was guilty as charged on all three counts.

In a 600-page long indictment the anticorruption prosecutors last week decided to send Nastase to court for taking bribes, receiving illegal benefits and blackmailing, while in office as a prime-minister, between 2000 and 2004. He risks up to 12 years in prison if convicted.

I base my statements on the body of knowledge I got as a graduated of Law School, where I had as professor the famous Avram Filipas, and read the work of Ion Tanoviceanu and Petre Pandrea. I have friends among prosecutors and I practiced law as an attorney at law for a few years.

I know some readers will think I am taking sides and defending Nastase for his Government nominated me for the position with the National Council for the Audiovisual Media strans. note: a body regulating the electronic media in Romaniat.

Nothing could be further from the truth.
Furthermore, I do not ask anyone to take my word for granted, but make one’s own assessment with reading with one’s own eyes the 600-page long indictment.

The bottom line is that the latter does not hold water simply because there is no actual proof of prior understanding between Nastase and the other entities indicted in this file, be they individuals or companies.

The indictment is based on "assumptions" and witnesses stating they "believed" things stayed in one way or another.
However, assumptions and beliefs have no relevance in a court of law, where people are judged according to proofs building up their indictment files.

Furthermore, the witnesses used by prosecutors to build the file against Nastase can be easily dismissed as not credible, since they were previously indicted in the same case, to later turn up as witnesses, after changing their initial statements.
Some of the final statements these people made were obviously dictated by prosecutors, as they resemble like carbon-copies in their wording.

It is a very serious issue the one that I am pointing out to: that the anti-corruption prosecutors thought it feasible to indict a former PM on taking bribes, while no proof of that was presented, makes it clear that anyone could get the same kind of treatment in the future.

The justice system during the communist regime did not dare indict a person for taking bribes unless that person was caught in the act by prosecutors.

Equally worrying is the fact that the anti-corruption prosecutors turn accusations made by indicted persons against fellow indicted persons into a legitimate way to get off the hook.
This was one of the tricks deployed successfully by the communist time judiciary too.
Are we back there, then?