- “It looks like a desperate attempt to search for anything.” On the principle: “What if something can be found, not necessarily related to the case. We will be x-raying your whole life, so be careful ”, tells us a person who knows the background of the investigation
- The idea of x-raying the accounts appeared at the end of October, i.e. after the decision of the Poznań-Old Town District Court, which thrown the prosecutor’s office for the arrest of Krauze into the trash.
- From the investigators’ point of view, the situation is difficult. There are legally valid decisions in legal circulation, the justification of which is, inter alia, weak evidence and unlikely to break the law
- More such information can be found on the main page of Onet.pl
– The atmosphere is terrible. “Góra” has gone crazy – one of the prosecutors from Poznań tells us anonymously.
This case could open the door to a great career for his colleagues. For now, however, they must forget about it. The Regional Prosecutor’s Office from the capital of Greater Poland scored a series of defeats and came close to embarrassment.
The courts refused to arrest him against any of the suspects in the so-called the Polnord scandal. Judges adjudicating in this case crushed evidence presented by prosecutors. In addition, they forgot to send a complaint to the court about the lack of detention for one of the main suspects.
It is not the end. The judge suspended the implementation of the preventive measures order on Tuesday towards Roman Giertych. Among them was a ban on practicing as a lawyer. After a month break, Giertych returned to work.
However, the investigators are not letting go. As Onet found out, the prosecutor’s office now wants to screen the suspects’ bank accounts.
The list also includes Tricity businessman Ryszard Krauze (he was also supposed to be in jail for three months), the former owner of the Polnord company, from which – according to investigators – he was to withdraw over PLN 90 million.
Millionaire from Gdynia he had to do so by selling a fictional one receivables, as well as transactions carried out through a chain of allegedly fictitious companies owned by Sebastian J. and Piotr Ś.
The prosecutor’s office’s announcements so far show that the period when the offenses were to take place ends in 2015. It is even more surprising that the banking transactions of Krauze and other suspects from 2020 and 2019 are to be inspected.
“It looks like a desperate attempt to search for anything.” On the principle: “What if something can be found, not necessarily related to the case. We will be x-raying your whole life, so be careful ”, tells us a person who knows the background of the investigation.
Krauze pleads not guilty and seems confident. He gave extensive testimony to both the prosecutor’s office and the court. He resigned from the appeal against the decision on detention by the CBA. He declares that he wants a quick clarification of the matter.
“The prosecutor’s office in Poznań is probably bored with the investigation regarding mine activity in 2011-2014, because I want access to my account from 2019 to October 29, 2020! I just don’t understand why they are letting go of the years 2015-2019 with their watchful eye? “- Roman Giertych wrote today on Twitter, confirming that the investigators also want to check his account.
The rest of the text is below the video
A series of failures for the prosecution
The idea of examining bank accounts appeared at the end of October, and so after the decision of the District Court Poznań-Old Townwho threw all the prosecutor’s requests for arrest into the trash.
Judge Renata Żurowska did not leave a dry thread on the evidence collected by the prosecutor’s office. She referred to the very rarely used so-called a general clause, i.e. no crime being committed.
Her arguments were fully shared a few days ago by the District Court, which examined the complaints of the investigators.
As we learn, the prosecutor conducting the investigation did not appear at the Monday meetings. He was replaced by a colleague from the unit. – Do you know how she argued the position of the prosecutor’s office? She said that she supports the complaint and that’s it – reports our source in the Poznań court.
It is not the end. There was a bizarre situation. The Regional Prosecutor’s Office sent a letter to the court with the information that the arrest of the suspects was necessary because the case was developing and new evidence had emerged. Only that evidence was not brought to the court.
Meanwhile, according to Onet’s information, a special team of prosecutors is hastily formed to save the investigation. Let us remind you that the Regional Prosecutor’s Office in Wrocław dealt with this case for a long time. As reported by “Gazeta Wyborcza”, in July the investigation was moved to Poznań.
From the investigators’ point of view, the situation is difficult. There are legally binding decisions in legal circulation, the justification of which is, inter alia, weak evidence and unlikely to break the law.
Until this article was published, the prosecution had not answered our questions. In a statement from a few days ago, the Press Department of the National Public Prosecutor’s Office argued that further circumstances and charges may arise in the case.
“None of the court decisions made at this stage of the proceedings, with which the prosecution does not agree, means that the investigation will be concluded. It is not the court, but the prosecutor who decides to conduct preliminary proceedings and present charges, ”we read.
It was a response to the civil lawsuit that Roman Giertych brought against the head of the Poznań Regional Prosecutor’s Office, Jerzy Motawski.
“He had the audacity at a press conference to judge my guilt (and this is the task of the court) and accuse me of breaking the attorney’s ethics (and this is the task of the bar association),” wrote Giertych on Twitter.
The lawyer demands an apology and 50,000 golden compensation. At the same time, he is threatening lawsuits against anyone who uses phrases such as “he is at risk of 10 years” or “suspected of participation”.
–
