The ACF had many and even worse questions from Sodhir Chatterjee

The ACF had many and even worse questions from Sodhir Chatterjee

During the trial of Mr. Wesley Tenkov, Mr. Yanev says in confidential records released that he met Sodhir Chatterjee and was later detained in a special prosecutor’s office case, as well as cases pending before KPConby. The press release states that Yen Yanev has already denied such meetings in front of commission officials, and that Sodhir Chattarov has denied such meetings in his personal position. This is stated in the report of the Anti-Corruption Fund.

“Appreciating the publicity in the case of KPCONPI and its chairman, the information they provide raises some questions.

Because we believe their clarity is in the public interest, we urge them in a letter included in KPKONPI to respond:

Question 1: Have explanations been taken from Attorney General Ivan Keshe?

Immediately after the release of the first part of the “Quick Control List” on June 11, 2021, the Commission’s Directorate of Anti-Corruption launched an investigation, during which explanations were taken from the persons mentioned in the film, the press release said. Including Emil Biskov, Martin Bozhanov, Stoyman Sagalov, Yen Yanev, Vladislav Koronov, Georgi Ushev and Pyko Borisov. Items from the inspection were shipped on June 23, 2021 under the competence of the Attorney General’s Office.

We set aside why this was not communicated to us by answering questions that we openly sent to the Commission’s Press Center on 23.06.2021. The big question here is whether explanations have been taken from Attorney General Ivan Keshe, who is one of the persons mentioned in the high-ranking positions in the film, but not in the press release.

See also  The Liberal government was overthrown by a motion of protest

Question 2: Does the leader of KPCONPI think that his subordinates should check the allegations against him in the film?

It is also of great concern that a study directly affecting the President of the CCCDP is being carried out by his deputy. They are the ones who record the information from Yen Yane about the meetings with their leader, which is said to have discussed the use of uncontrolled influence.

Therefore, it is not clear whether the circumstances surrounding Attorney General Ivan Keshev were affected by KP Gonzalez during their investigation and we can expect further clarification by his aides in the trial.

In the case of and in the presence of individual anti-corruption agencies in the person of KPCONPI it should be considered that the data on alleged corruption behavior by their leaders should be verified by at least a systematic at least at an early stage by independent authorities. The supervisor is the same company and practically as much as possible to avoid potential conflicts of interest.

Question 3: How is the Chatcharov-Tenkov meeting organized? Can anyone examined by the Commission meet its chairman? The press release also states that he was accepted by the Chairman of the Commission on 21.08.2020 at the request of Wessel Dengo with allegations of gross violations committed by KP Gonpi organizations. At the time, Denkov had already been charged and had been charged with felony criminal mischief. Seizure of illegally purchased property.

How is this meeting in line with a person and its chairman who have taken legal action within the Commission on its money transfer? Can you meet the President of the Commission in person and signal his allegations and tell him directly? Or does the arrangement of the meeting require special mediation by an unnamed third party in the press release?

See also  IS 'Beatles' will not encounter death penalty in US

These issues are particularly pertinent in the context of another press release issued by KPCONPI a day before this meeting (on 20.08.2020) stating that George Georgiev, an activist of the civil society “BOEC” had not been accepted against his will on the same date as the Chairman of the Commission to lodge a personal complaint with him. Chatterjee denied conversations with Georgiev, who had no evidence that the commission was carrying out its activities, and was motivated only by photographs of then-Prime Minister Boyko Borisov, SCC President Lausanne Banov and accused former banker Sveton Vasilev.

These issues are particularly relevant and Mr. Against the background of several meetings and contacts of Sotir Chattanooga, he received a very serious public response during his tenure as Attorney General.

In 2013, Sodir Chattarov said he had invited former Interior Minister Svetlana Svedanov to an official meeting with former parliamentarian Delian Bevsky, who was allowed by the United States this year under the Magnitsky Act for electricity corruption. Mr. Satsarov did not deny the meeting between the three, but said he did not take Beevsky to Svedano, but found him there.

In 2015, the Biol website released a secret recording from the Yanovagate series, in which former Sofia city court chairwoman Vladimira Yanuva said that Satcharov had a secret meeting with several trusted members of the SJC. He had called her on the phone to inform her of the council’s decision. Mr. Chatcharov denied such a call, but it was never clarified whether the allegation was verified by collecting data on conversations from the two’s official phones.

See also  Viral video of a woman apologizing when she was beaten by the Taliban in Afghanistan

In 2017, the meeting between businessman and publisher Sasho Danzev and Sotir Chatcharov became known as the Federal Department Store Gate through the mediation of businessman and politician Georgi Kerkov. According to Danzev, he received threats from Chatterjee regarding publications and cartoons in the Sega newspaper.

Mr. Satsarov did not deny the meeting, but Dansev wanted to sue in his case, which he denied. These cases (and many others) described above for many years raised suspicions of unregulated contacts and the cultivated context of secret summits of state power, which were further exacerbated by the lack of an adequate institutional response to the issues raised. Data on such situations have now been published in the “Quick Checklist” and the corporate response has so far raised new questions than have traditionally clarified the doubts.

If the doubts are confirmed, we will recall the following:

– The intervention of the executive branch of the then Prime Minister Baiko Borisov and KP Gonpi in the judiciary; The indictment of witnesses defended in the case against Wesley Tengkov; The intervention of Attorney General Ivan Keshev in special courts; The intervention of the Executive Chairman of the Special Court of Appeal in the work of the Court Panels in specific cases; Many ethical violations, “the statement added.

You May Also Like

About the Author: Will Smith

Alfred Lee covers public and private tech markets from New York. He was previously a Knight-Bagehot Fellow in Economics and Business Journalism at Columbia University, and prior to that was a reporter at the Los Angeles Business Journal. He has received a Journalist of the Year award from the L.A. Press Club and an investigative reporting award from the Society of American Business Editors and Writers.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *