According to the analysis, DNA claims that a future law was violated. Specifically, the Government is accused that through the decision regarding the transformation of ICA into a joint stock company a law would be violated that had not yet been published in the Official Gazette.
The DNA expert who wrote the report argues that the privatization of ICA would be illegal because the deadline for triggering the privatization procedure was the second semester and the date the announcement was published would have been the fourth quarter. Or, even a primary school student knows that the fourth quarter is part of the second half of the year.
Also in this regard, DNA grounds part of its allegations on an edition of the Official Gazette which has no connection with the publication of the privatization announcement.
Furthermore, DNA accuses Grivco and ADS that the procedure by which the tender advertisement was published was not transparent. All the more considering that it was not the responsibility of the two parties but of the Focus Advertising agency that had been awarded the contract by tender.
Furthermore, DNA believes that the privatization announcement had been published in an "obscure" newspaper. The Independent daily was at that time a larger circulation paper than many other publications on the market.
DNA argues that there were old ties between the representatives of ADS and Grivco. The claim is based on a confusion of names. Jean-Catalin Sandu, ADS director, was accused, as general manager of SC Bioprod SA that he had signed a contract with Grivco in 1999. Actually, he has never held a position in this company and has been confused with Constantin Sandu.
In 2008, AVAS sent prosecutor Doru Ţuluş 34 volumes with copies of documents. No paper out of the 34 volumes is found in the file sent to court by the DNA.
At the request of the DNA, the Ministry of Agriculture was established as a civil party in the Telepathy case in November 2012. This action was illegal because as of March 2003 the Ministry of Agriculture has not received any money from the privatization of the company’s shares.
DNA disregarded expert data demonstrating that the defendants were not guilty. The only specialist in the file was the DNA expert who calculated the value of the properties privatized in 2003 at 2008 prices.
According to the DNA indictment, the tender would have been faked by the presence of a "formal" second bidder. In fact, the privatization could have been performed even if there had been only one bidder.
The investigation of the GIP shows that prosecutor Doru Ţuluş tangled up in the documents, namely he had mistaken the selling announcement with the list of agricultural companies to be privatized by the ADS.
Both the indictment and the sentence, the absence of evidence is covered by an alleged lack of cooperation of those involved.
Forgeries aren’t missing either. The sentence refers to the statements that some of the defendants, for instance Gheorghe Mencinicopschi wanted to privatize the Institute at any price in favor of Grivco. In reality, there is no such declaration in the file.