English• Ioan Nastea, immediately promoted by the minister to lead the ANIF, the very institution that has filed a lawsuit against him
• Three years ago, the general inspectorate of the Police began a criminal probe against Ioan Nastea for abuse in office, in an affair concerning the funds used for repairing the damages caused by floods
The situation at the National Land Administration (ANIF) is simply ridiculous: a former general manager which was sued by the ANIF itself for alleged prejudices was appointed a few days later on its Board of Directors.
The appointment was made by the Minister of Agriculture, Mihail Dumitru, as the ANIF answers to the Ministry.
The person in question is the former general manager Ioan Nastea, which was sued on April 12, 2010 by the ANIF for the way he has managed the institution between 2005 and 2007.
According to the official document which was obtained by us, Ioan Nastea was sued "in order to be forced to pay the amount of 23,949.69 lei, which represents the equivalent value of the damages he caused to the ANIF".
The case was admitted on April 20th, with the object "pecuniary liability", and filed under "labor litigations". The first deadline was set for January 20th, 2011.
Just a few days after the ANIF filed the lawsuit against Nastea, the minister of Agriculture, Mihail Dumitru, changed the structure of the board of directors of the ANIF, and one of the new members includes Ioan Nastea himself.
• The Ministry of Agriculture: "We were not aware of the existence of the lawsuit"
Contacted by BURSA, the officials of the Ministry of Agriculture said that they appointed Ioan Nastea, without being aware of the lawsuit that he was involved in: "We didn"t know he was involved in an ongoing trial. After receiving your notice, we have requested the ANIF to provide us with further information about this lawsuit. Mr. Nastea is presumed innocent, but if it is revealed that a prejudice did occur, then Mr. Nastea will be removed from the Board of Directors of the ANIF. For now there are no elements that would confirm this aspect".
• Ioan Nastea: "I was not aware of this lawsuit"
Ioan Nastea says he is innocent and that the ANIF did not notify him of this lawsuit: "Nobody notified me of this lawsuit and the Administration did not even summon me to present explanations on this matter. I have the documents needed to prove my innocence and I might later decide to file a criminal complaint against the former managers of the ANIF".
Since both parties claim they were not aware of the fact that legal action was initiated, this leaves the possibility of a disruption of the communication process within the institution.
However, sources from within the institution claim that the appointment of Ioan Nastea on the Board of Director of the ANIF was made precisely to help protect him against his past accusations, an allegation for which there is no proof as of yet.
Ioan Nastea denies these claims and considers that he is caught in the middle of a political war for the control of the ANIF.
The argument he uses to back his claim is the fact that the lawsuit comes three years after his mandate expired.
While it is indeed true that the legal action was brought a long after his mandate ended, but it may also be caused by the fact that it was only in 2009, the Court of Auditors uncovered even greater irregularities than the ones that Ioan Nastea is accused of.
A complicated situation which illustrates the flaws of a system, which is for the most part essential to the quality of our agriculture and furthermore the tragedy of people that have been the victims of floods several times in the past years.
• The verification made by the Court of Auditors
ANIF filed a lawsuit against Ioan Nastea after a probe made by the Court of Auditors in 2009. Everything started from two contracts that Ioan Nastea concluded with a security company during his mandate.
Following this association, the Court of Accounts found "that the patrimony of the ANIF suffered a loss of 337,101.86 lei, in damages and penalties requested by the security company and paid by the public company, due to the fact that it did not pay on time the invoices issued by the security company for the security services it provided in 2007", as stated in the summons, obtained by BURSA.
The prejudice has the following structure: 90,574 lei in damages and penalties of 50,359.66 lei; and an additional 196,194.73 lei in penalties calculated for an invoice of 221,473.28 lei.
The Court of Auditors ruled the following: "Legal action in order to recover the amounts lost by the company (337,101,47) lei, representing damages and penalties paid by the institution, as it was voluntarily prevented from making the payments to the security firm for the services delivered by the latter according to the contracts it had concluded with the ANIF".
• The trial
Following the ruling of the Court of Auditors, the management of the ANIF asked the Audit department to draw up a Verification Report which would name the individuals responsible for the prejudice of 337,128.86 lei suffered by the ANIF. The Verification Report states that Ioan Nastea did not pay the invoices issued by the security company, withholding those amounts alleging that they would be used to cover the damages suffered by the ANIF as a result of the activity of the security company. The same Verification Report acknowledges that the loss suffered by the ANIF which can be imputed to Ioan Nastea amounts to 23,949.69 lei. "The difference of 313,179.17 lei, out of the total losses of 337,128.86 lei was covered according to the memo no. 2777 of March 26th, 2010", the summons states. It is interesting that as reported exclusively by our paper at the time, the security company had requested for ANIF to be declared bankrupt. The litigation with the security company began after the management of the ANIF discovered that despite the security contract, goods were still being stolen from the company. As a result, the ANIF sued the security company requesting damages. In light of this, it would seem that the decision of Ioan Nastea to refuse the payment of the invoices issued by the security company and to request compensation for the thefts is justified. But this will be decided by the Court...
• The criminal prosecution file
The Department for Investigating Fraud of the General Police Inspectorate ruled on February 2nd, 2007, the beginning of the criminal pursuit against Ioan Nastea and other directors of the ANIF at the time.
They were accused of signing and executing three contracts for the repairs of the dyke of the town of Borcea de Jos in the county of Ialomiţa, in violation of the law of public procurement and the Law of Land Improvement.
An official document that our newspaper obtained states the following: "Three contracts were concluded for the same works, and payment was made without taking delivery. The probe also revealed that the National Land Improvement Society performed repair works at far lower prices and which held out a lot better to the erosion of the Danube. A technical verification was performed which concluded that the works did not comply with the technical requirements. A financial and technical audit needs to be performed in order to determine the extent of the irregularities".
• The "Dom" Costel" (Constantin "Costel" Iancu) case
In February 2009, the "Evenimentul zilei" daily published an article informing that Costel Iancu, a member of the PD-L organization was had been appointed as the head of the National Land Improvement Administration of the Ministry of Agriculture. Costel Iancu was accused of the setup of an organized crime group, unlawful deprivation of freedom and blackmail. According to the "Evenimentul zilei", the new head of the ANIF was accused of having ordered the kidnapping of a businessman and his wife in 2006, in order to force him to sell him stock in a company. Following these revelations, Constantin (Costel) Iancu was forced to resign from the management of the ANIF. Now, almost one year later, it is revealed that his replacement is also accused of irregularities in the administration of the ANIF. Ioan Nastea is also an important member of the PD-L.
Euro
Dolar SUA
Franc elveţian
Liră sterlină
Gram de aur
