The Court ignores the course of events
The Court considers that the outcome from the money laundry crime the defendant Dan Voiculescu committed has to be seized from the complainants Voiculescu Camelia Rodica and Voiculescu Corina-Mirela in whose ownership they were freely transferred by the defendant Voiculescu.
(...) Given that on 06.06.2006 the donation contract was signed whereby it was freely transferred into the ownership of the defendants daughters Camelia Rodica Voiculescu, Corina Mirela Voiculescu these persons were erroneously considered by the prosecutor as third parties in good faith. (...)Confiscation from third parties should be possible at least in cases where the third party knew or should have known that the purpose of the transfer was to avoid confiscation or purchase based on specific facts and circumstances, including the fact that the transfer was free of charge or in return for a fee significantly lower than the market value of property. Or, in this case, the property acquired by committing acts of criminal law by the defendant Dan Voiculescu were to be seized from complainants Camelia Rodica Voiculescu, Corina Mirela Voiculescu in whose ownership they were transferred free of charge by the defendant Voiculescu under the donation contract ".
The guests on today’s "100 minutes with Alessandra Stoicescu" show , Diana Tache, former MIA officers, Mihăiţă Calimente, PNL deputy and Mugur Ciuvică , chairman of the Political Investigation Group commented on the topic above.
"Beyond the alleged departure of Hon. Judge, part of the career path she chose and the she organized it, I would make a comparison to the case of Adrian Nastase, where the judicial reasoning was issued after 150 days and it referred to issues related to the sentimentality of defendants, the way in which they occurred during the process. A passage caught my attention which to me is the most important key in the reasoning, where the judges explain that Dan Voiculescu and the rest of the convicted were happy criminals. And they begin to restore the happy offender’s theory and how they manifest in relation to the prosecutors sadness.I have never come across such thing in the judicial reasoning of a trial that has been in the frontline of the public opinion attention. To me, it seems this has nothing to do with the justice principle”, Diana Tache stated.
Mugur Ciuvică too has express his point of view related to the topic: " Now it is not the "Telepathy" anymore. They realized how ridiculous that sounded and took it out from the reasoning. It’s aberrant. A man donated to his daughters his shares. He said it publicly, he announced it. He stated he would get more involved into politics and basically it was a political gesture if you will. (...) He did that at the time he did not own any company. The problems occurred afterwards, because it was Mr. Dan Voiculescu who got involved in charring the commission that led the suspension of s Traian Băsescu in 2007. The newly established Antena 3 back then started investigated certain abuses committed by Băsescu and the file resurfaced".