The complaint asks for the investigation of Dan Voiculescu' because he "fights back " President Traian Basescu and of Mircea Badea for "deliberate aggression" and television games.
On June 10, 2005, the ICA file was closed by the prosecutor general with a decision not to proceed further with the investigation. Two years later, after the onset of the referendum procedures for the dismissal of President Traian Basescu, Daniel Morar did everything he could to reopen the ICA file. In the absence of legal arguments DNA used two ridiculous informers, as evidenced by documents published by the Political Investigations Group.
Thus, in March 2007, a citizen who said he was "disgusted" with the whole thing, submitted to DNA a photocopy of an article in the Curentul newspaper known for its laudatory articles about Traian Basescu. On the article copy, the man wrote with a pen that "it is appropriate to reopen the case file" because it is "quite obvious ".
For DNA it was enough. The few words written with a pen were raised to the rank of "anonymous complaint".
A report found by the GIP shows that "the content of the complaint shows that the legal provision regulating tenders have been breached." This paper was immediately approved by the chief prosecutor, Head of the Investigation Department of DNA Doru Ţuluş.
The second document that led to the reopening of the ICA File was an anonymous tip sent to Daniel Morar, a month later.
A document that was as partisan as it was illiterate. Unrelated to the Institute's privatization, it asked Daniel Morar to investigate how Dan Voiculescu came to make such a fortune. And the document reminded about an alleged air fleet that Voiculescu owned which Ion Iliescu had uses too.
Ironically, Morar was asked to investigate Dan Voiculescu for daring to vehemently fight back the accusations by President Traian Basescu and by the PDL. Mircea Badea was also given as a negative example for displaying everything he could find in the press in connection with Basescu.
In the end, the head of DNA was urged to ban a series of programs broadcast by Antena 1 on the grounds that they would make too much money.
What did the DNA do with the second anonymous complaint goes beyond belief.
Because the paper was unsigned, the Prosecutor General asked for an examination of the handwriting on the envelope containing the complaint. It was established that the author was Vasile Popa from Bucharest. He was asked to go to DNA as the "injured party" in May 2007. Nobody knows what happened at the DNA at the time.
The file contains a statement date June 2007. The shocking thing is that Vasile Popa said he knew nothing about the privatization of ICA and that his dissatisfaction was actually about the building the employees of the Institute were working in.