
The defendant OMN, president of the administrative board of the S.C. X. S.A Pitesti helped by the codefendant, MV abstained from paying the fiscal obligations to the state causing a prejudice of approximatively 870 000 EURO. The prejudice was created by concealing one of the tax sources-a land that the society owned and that was sold to another company in Sibiu but not directly but by using the man in the middle technique, that is the defendant MV sold to the Sibiu company the land, although the selling process between the Pitesti firm and the defendant MV were never registered to the accountant registers of the Pitesti firm.
It has to be said the fact despite the selling contract between SC X Pitesti and MV, the contract that was never registered in the accountand registers of the firm, the sum of money stipulated in the contract was never payed.
After a period of time the defendant OMN annuled the contract with the motivation that the price was never payed.
Although he has a more convenient offer to sell the land, the re-sold it to the defendant MV for approx. 123 000 USD. The contracted was concluded between OMN and a representative of MV who was at the same time administrator of the company which represented a clear conflict of interest. 15 days later the defendant MV sold the same land to the company in Sibiu for aprox 2.700 000 USD. 2500 000 USD were paid by the Sibiu company to MV who subsequently transferred aprox. 500 000 USD to S.C X Pitesti.This transaction was also never registered in the accountant registers of the firm. The profit of aprox 2 200 000 USD was concealed by concluding some fake loan and selling contracts between OMN and MV of some appartments located in Columbia which proved not to be in the property of OMN. The sums of money he fraudulently obtained he then transferred to this personal accounts and from there to the firm accounts using them afterwards in order to obtain further finance within the framework of the EU and the modernization of the firm.
The evidences which lead to the sentencing of the defendant consisted in statements of the suspects, defendants, witnesses, report undertake by DIICOT central unit, forensic report(accountant expertise, tehnical-scientific expertise, report of ONPCS(National Office for the Prevention and Combat of Money Laudering), payment orders, contracts, etc.In the Romanian procedural law the evidences do not have a preestablished value, the prosecutor or the court are the ones to decide on the value of each evidence after examining all the evidences.
The request is still pending and needed to follow formal procedures through diplomatic channels in order to fulfill with the legal requirements of Colombia. Still, in order to make sure the legal requirements regarding the certification under the Colombian law were respected, prior contacts through email were made with the Colombian counterparts. It is important to establish good practices in this respect, to try and solve all the uncertainties before actually submitting the request. This can spare a lot of time and effort from both sides.
One of the sentenced persons, a Romanian citizen has been located in Colombia. In order to have the sentence executed, an extradition request needed to be forwarded to the state where the person has been located. From this perspective it has to be underlined that the
interpretation brought to the concept of transnational in art. 16 is broader than in art. 3 as the mere presence of the sought person in the Requested State Party is considered to be compliant with it.
District Court of Pitesti
In first instance, the offender has been aquitted as regards the money laundering charge and was sentenced for the other charges to a total punishment of 2 years. The court decided to conditionally suspend the execution of the punishment.
In the second instance appeal the High Court of Cassation and Justice maitained the charge and consequently sentenced the defendant for the money laundering offence but also decided to diminish the punishment for each of the offences and the total punishment was also readuced to 3 years imprisonment. A contestation to the execution of the punishment has been lodged and admitted by the High Court of Cassation and Justice which partially quashed the previous decision but in retrial maitained the total punishment to be executed by the defendant (3 years of imprisonment)
money laundering
money laundering
avoidance to pay the state taxes
avoidance to pay the state taxes
forgery of documents under private signature
forgery of documents under private signature
The case is relevant as it brings together also substantial provisions from the Convention but also provisions related to the international judicial cooperation, namely extradition. The fact that the Convention aimed at harmonizing the substantial law provisions of the State Parties with regard to certain type of offences, allows from the very beginning, at least in the case of money laundering,the offence under discussion here to assume that the condition of double criminality essential in extradition procedures is accomplished.