The Anti-Corruption Fund (ACF) made some clarifications and corrections to the position presented by the Prosecutor’s Office on the new list of 5 Bulgarian citizens with sanctions under the US Magnitsky Act. According to the organization, the statement „The Prosecutor’s Office of the Republic of Bulgaria has long taken all necessary actions in accordance with its competence under the Constitution and the law with regard to all sanctioned Bulgarian citizens“ does not correspond to the truth. It is alleged that the position of the State Prosecution contains misleading, inaccurate and incomplete information about specific names and cases as follows:
- The most important fact about the previously sanctioned US and now UK MP Delyan Peevski is omitted: that according to publicly known information, any alleged criminal activity of the person has never been investigated in the course of criminal proceedings. All the investigations against him, without knowing their exact number or specifically what circumstances they concern, have invariably resulted in refusals to initiate criminal proceedings.
The complete absence of Peevski, expressed in his unwillingness to be questioned even as a witness, even from the investigation in the case of the bankruptcy of CCB, despite the many publicly known data about his involvement with the bank, is indicative. The special attitude of the state prosecution towards him is also evident in the alteration of his initials „DP“ to „10“ during a press conference of the prosecution in connection with the investigation of the case known as „the notebook of Filip Zlatanov“ – the former chairman of the Commission for the Prevention of Conflict of Interest.
Since there were no pre-trial proceedings against Peevski, there is no formal reason for requesting international legal assistance to collect evidence, as the prosecution reported in relation to Vasil Bozhkov, for example. And this is the only way to verify the serious data reported in journalistic investigations about Peevski’s hidden involvement in commercial companies whose ultimate beneficial owners remain unclear or hidden in jurisdictions such as the UK, Liechtenstein, the UAE, Cyprus, the Bahamas and in British overseas territories such as the British Virgin Islands and the island of Anguilla.
- Rumen Ovcharov was indicted not for the information provided by Magnitsky about the illegal acquisition of funds, but for allowing the failure of officials subordinate to him in two separate criminal proceedings concerning the „Belene NPP“ and „Mini Bobov Dol“ projects. In both cases, he was brought in as an accused with a huge delay in time – about 10 years after the alleged crime was committed, which in turn, in both cases, concerns transactions with known parameters, i.e. no operational activity was required to uncover a complicated criminal scheme, which would justify the delay of the procedural actions.
- Nikolay Malinov is not publicly known to have been investigated for the corruption alleged by the US authorities, and his accusation concerns the so-called espionage. When the case was made public, the prosecutor’s office then announced that it was a separate pre-trial proceeding for a crime against the financial system /probably the case of the bankruptcy of CCB, where Malinov was a witness and gave information about a series of conversations between him, Tsvetan Vassilev and Delyan Peevski/. The Prosecutor’s Office presented as evidence letters from Malinov to Russian businessmen seeking funding for investment projects, but there does not seem to be any information that would constitute a state or other secret protected by law.
- There is no data on any actions by the Prosecutor’s Office regarding the first Bulgarian citizen sanctioned under Magnitsky, Judge Andon Mitalov. In his case, there was a disciplinary proceeding by the High Judicial Council, which ended in October 2021 without a penalty. Thus, Judge Mitalov continued to work in the judicial system.
- The statement by the prosecutor’s office regarding the sanctioned Vasil Bozhkov, otherwise accused since 2020, regarding the actions to verify his allegations of a corruption scheme in gambling with the participation of Vladislav Goranov, also sanctioned under Magnitsky, arouses serious bewilderment. It became clear that it was only in April 2022 that the prosecution sent a request for legal assistance to the UAE for a remote interrogation of Vasil Bozhkov as a witness, after his statements have been publicly known since May 2020. The same allegations are reflected in the new message from the US authorities with reasons for imposing sanctions on Vladislav Goranov. This leads to the conclusion that for almost two whole years the state prosecution has not worked to clarify these circumstances despite its legal obligations to do so, which is probably the result of the public neglect of Bozhkov’s statements by the Prosecutor General in a TV interview on 16 May 2020.
- From what the Prosecutor’s Office said about Ilko Zhelyazkov, it is clear that an investigation was carried out, but its result is being spared – which is probably the same as with Peevski. In the Magnitsky report it was clearly stated that Peevski used Ilko Zhelyazkov to carry out a bribery scheme concerning Bulgarian residence documents for foreign citizens, as well as to bribe public officials through various means in exchange for information and loyalty on their part.
We believe that the statement that „the effective countering of corruption is the responsibility of the three authorities“ is true, but it is the Prosecutor’s Office that leads the investigation of crimes and it is its responsibility to ensure that it is carried out lawfully.
When investigations into specific publicly known evidence of alleged corruption in high levels of government are not carried out at all, or are done incompletely, or with unjustified delays in time, it is the prosecution that owes the public answers.
With regard to the data released by the US Treasury Department on the two Magnitsky lists, the Bulgarian Prosecutor’s Office owes the public more and more regular information and evidence of an impartial and thorough approach.
What has been reported so far in the majority of the cases only reinforces doubts to the contrary.
