Yanev says in the published secret records that he met with Mr. Sotir Tsatsarov on the occasion of the case of Veselin Denkov, then detained in the case of the Specialized Prosecutor’s Office and with pending proceedings before KPKONPI. The press release claims that Yane Yanev himself has already denied such meetings in front of Commission officials, and Sotir Tsatsarov has also denied the meetings in his personal position. “This is stated in a statement of the Anti-Corruption Fund Foundation.
“Admiring the publicity in the case of KPCONPI and its chairman, the information provided by them raises some questions.
Since we believe that their clarification is of high public interest, we ask them in a letter included in KPKONPI, to which we insist on receiving an answer:
Question 1: Have explanations been taken from the Chief Prosecutor Ivan Geshev?
The press release says that immediately after the publication of the first part of the “Quick Control List” on June 11, 2021, the Commission’s Anti-Corruption Directorate launched an investigation, during which explanations were taken from the persons mentioned in the film. , including Emil Piskov, Martin Bojanov, Stoimen Chakalov, Yane Yanev, Vladislav Goranov, Georgi Ushev and Boyko Borisov. The materials from the inspection were sent under the competence of the prosecutor’s office on June 23, 2021.
We leave aside why this was not communicated to us by answering the questions that we explicitly sent on 23.06.2021 to the press center of the commission. The big question here is whether explanations have been taken from the Chief Prosecutor Ivan Geshev, who is also among the persons mentioned in the film in high state positions, but not in the press release.
Question 2: Does the chairman of KPCONPI think that it is his subordinates who should check the allegations concerning him in the film?
Of great concern is also the fact that an inspection directly affecting the President of the CCCTB is carried out by his subordinate officials. It is they who are recording information from Yane Yanev about alleged meetings with their leader, at which it is alleged that the exercise of unregulated influence was discussed.
Thus, we can probably expect that the circumstances concerning the Chief Prosecutor Ivan Geshev, unclear whether affected by KPKONPI in the course of their inspection, will still be clarified by his subordinate officials in the prosecution – if at all.
In the presence of separate anti-corruption institutions in the person of the prosecution and KPCONPI, it should be assumed that the data on any alleged corrupt behavior by their leaders should be verified at least at the initial stage by at least formally independent officials. by the same institution as the supervisee and, as far as is procedurally possible, potential conflicts of interest to be avoided.
Question 3: How is the Tsatsarov-Denkov meeting arranged? Can anyone examined by the Commission meet with its chairman? The press release also claims that at the request of Veselin Denkov with allegations of serious violations committed by KPKONPI bodies, he was accepted by the Chairman of the Commission on 21.08.2020. At that time Denkov was already accused and initiated proceedings by KPKONPI. for confiscation of illegally acquired property.
How is this meeting between a person against whom the Commission has taken legal action within its remit and its leader arranged? Can anyone in his procedural position meet in person with the President of the Commission to signal and make his allegations directly to him? Or did the arrangement of the meeting require the special mediation of a third party, not named in the press release?
These issues are particularly relevant against the background of another press release published only a day before this meeting (on 20.08.2020) by KPCONPI, which states that the activist from the civil association “BOEC” Georgi Georgiev, despite his desire, was not adopted by the President of the Commission on the same date to file a personal complaint with him. Tsatsarov’s refusal to have a dialogue with Georgiev, against whom there is no evidence that the Commission is conducting proceedings, was motivated only by photos of the latter with then-Prime Minister Boyko Borissov, SCC Chairman Lozan Panov and accused former banker Tsvetan Vassilev.
The issues are especially relevant against the background of several meetings and contacts of Mr. Sotir Tsatsarov, which received a very serious public response at the time when he was the Chief Prosecutor.
In 2013, former Interior Minister Tsvetan Tsvetanov claimed that Sotir Tsatsarov had brought former MP Delyan Peevski to an official meeting with him, who this year was sanctioned by the United States under the Magnitsky Act for power corruption. Mr. Tsatsarov did not deny the meeting between the three, but stated that he did not take Peevski to Tsvetanov, but found him there.
In 2015, the Bivol website published a secret recording from the Yanevagate series, in which former Sofia City Court President Vladimira Yaneva claimed that Tsatsarov had held a secret meeting with several trusted members of the SJC before the Council removed her from office. and that he had called her on the internal telephone to inform her of the Council’s decision. Then Mr. Tsatsarov denied such a call, but it was never clarified whether the allegation was verified by collecting data about the conversations from the official telephones of the two.
In 2017, a meeting between businessman and publisher Sasho Donchev and Sotir Tsatsarov became known as the Central Department Store Gate with the mediation of businessman and politician Georgi Gergov in the latter’s office. According to Donchev, he received threats from Tsatsarov regarding publications and cartoons in the Sega newspaper.
Mr. Tsatsarov does not deny the meeting, but opposes that Donchev wanted prosecutorial intervention in his cases, which he refused. These cases described above over the years (and many others) have cast doubt on the cultivated environment of unregulated contacts and secret summits of state power, which has been further exacerbated by the lack of an adequate institutional response to the issues raised. Data on such circumstances are now being published in the “Quick Checklist”, and the institutional response has so far traditionally raised more new questions than clarifies the doubts.
And the doubts, if confirmed, let us recall, include the following:
– interference by the executive branch in the person of the then Prime Minister Boyko Borissov in the judiciary and KPKONPI; perjury of protected witnesses in the case against Veselin Denkov; intervention by Chief Prosecutor Ivan Geshev in the specialized courts; interference by the administrative head of the Appellate Specialized Court in the work of the court panels in specific cases; multiple ethical violations, “the statement added.
–
