How are prosecutors removed when they work on specific journalistic investigations, commented on "Mrezhata" on the "Hristo Botev" program of the Bulgarian National Radio Nikolay Staykov, an investigative journalist from the Anti-Corruption Fund.
What is happening
"What we expect to happen is for there to be something like the rule of law. Even if we don't go too far with "rule of law", at least from time to time someone for whom there is obvious evidence should go to prison. Two days ago, however, there was an interview with a representative of the prosecutorial college of the Supreme Judicial Council, which is the most important in the election of the Prosecutor General. And there, the "Eight Dwarfs" case was called "politicized" or "political".
This interview will be remembered as the most shameful interview in the history of the Bulgarian judicial system, since the answers to 9 out of 10 questions were: "I don't know", "I can't", "I don't comment". Note, the "Eight Dwarfs" case was initially ridiculed. Then, when Mr. Sarafov replaced Ivan Geshev, he said that this was a very important case that must be unraveled to the end. Suddenly, absolutely everything sank. It was literally called a "political" and "politicized" case two days ago. And currently there is only one case being prosecuted against the former head of the Sofia Investigation Department, Petrov, who is the main character in this plot.
His ex-wife, who spoke, and what she stated in the courtroom and was quoted in the media yesterday, is how in the middle of the night, material evidence in the form of 35 kg of gold was taken out from the Specialized Prosecutor's Office with very dubious and downright falsified documents. She stated directly and repeated this time in the courtroom that out of these 35 kg of gold, five went to Ivan Geshev, and to the prosecutor in the case – she calls him "Mitko", most likely it is Dimitar Frantisek Petrov.
We have witness statements, based on which nothing happens, and at the very least we should have people being questioned, arrested, etc. And at the same time we see how the Bulgarian prosecutor's office is overactive in other cases, which are being conducted against people from the opposition and which are inconvenient in some way for the ruling status quo, in which controversial evidence, controversial statements are being accepted and on which arrests are being made.
That is, on the one hand, we have a businesswoman in Varna, who lost some public procurement contracts, said some things, rumors that she heard someone say something, that someone took money, on the basis of which a person is arrested, and he turns out to be the mayor of Varna. And on the other hand, we have a first-person witness who says how there was corruption at the highest level of the Bulgarian prosecutor's office. We have testimonies – I'm not saying whether they are true or not – but they have evidentiary value. The double standards and the political filter are obvious. "The Eight Dwarfs" has become a landmark example of the prosecutor's office's closed eyes and ears."
"They have valiant prosecutors, but they are not sure they can do their job"
"We have talked more than once on your show about how the administrative leadership of a prosecutor's office – be it city, specialized, supreme, cassation – actually manages the processes inside, while formally leaving no written trace of any intervention. There are not 101, but probably 1001 ways to influence such a prosecution, for example. I will not say names and cases so as not to give away the sources in any way and to protect them, but in key cases there are direct ways in which a certain prosecutor can be intervened or influenced.
One of the real cases that I will tell, without saying names and cases, is the following: The deputy administrative head of the prosecutor's office, or the administrative head himself, comes in and takes one of the witnesses to the supervising prosecutor, who is supposed to conduct the interrogation or conduct the inspection. He or she takes him personally to demonstrate his friendly feelings, takes him personally.
These are things that have been shared with us quite confidentially, including another case: The moment when the administrative head calls the supervising prosecutor to talk most innocently over coffee about the case and there, at that very moment, the chief prosecutor turns out to be, who blurts out some phrases. There is no written trail, no intervention, nothing to investigate, nothing to report. Right now I am only sharing things that we have not talked about."
Loyalty and political influence
"Loyalty is to the administrative leadership, without asking questions about who actually appoints the administrative leadership. There is a mechanism of direct influence and political influence in the SJC and these are the parliamentary quotas. There is only one politician in the Republic of Bulgaria who has appointed his father-in-law to the SJC and this is Delyan Slavchev Peevski from the MRF quota, let's say, 15 years ago. This was a very clear demonstration.
One of the specializations and specific areas in which our organization and I have been accumulating knowledge is a very specific area: the so-called "fixers". The English term is "fixers", but the Bulgarian one is "опрачаци" in the judicial system.
As such, we can directly point to a person like Pepi Evroto, who was inside the system for many years, knows everyone, was at a fairly high level. As such, who started from low, but eventually rose high, we can also define Martin Bozanov the Notary, who is no longer among the living.
But in fact, we are talking at least about the biggest "fixer" in the judicial system, and that is Delyan Slavchev Peevski. Because from the moment he appointed his father-in-law in the judicial system 15 years ago, there has been a constant influence on many processes, many elections that have happened since then.
And in fact, the big difference between the "fixers" who work for money or for some kind of monetary gain, is that in my opinion Delyan Peevski did something else. He exerted influence, more influence, even more influence, and at some point, expanding it to political influence, that's where the money comes from. It obviously came, since he is currently one of the biggest donors, but no one can say what Mr. Peevski's business is. What does he buy, what does he sell, what services or goods does he produce or offer? I don't know. His annual declarations are a frank mockery of the idea of transparency in the business of politicians. No one knows what his business is, but we know that he is an extremely rich and influential person.
Accordingly, what he manages to do, starting with media influence, which in many cases we can define as media-political services related to spitting on certain politicians or promoting others. Then we go through the influence in the judicial system. And finally we are surprised that there is no one to investigate. That there is not a single institution to investigate Delyan Peevski - where does his money come from? What is his business?
Why haven't the doubts we have about the sale and liquidation of "Bulgartabac", about his role in businesses like CorpBank, been answered? Why do state banks like the Bulgarian Development Bank lend him loans – and we still don't know? We don't have an answer to this question.
The only thing we know is that he is untouchable in the institutions and very, very rich and influential. This man has made a business model out of influence in the judicial systems and politics, but not just as influence through a political party, but through an invisible, underground level of politics, where the real things happen. We see a business model that does not like the light, but is extremely influential and powerful."
Is there a chance for the truth
"Two years ago, we published the testimony of Sofia City Prosecutor Iliyana Kirilova, which completely shaped the picture of the most important corruption case of the past decade - the bankruptcy of Corpbank. What we were waiting for then was for a brave prosecutor to appear who would investigate the role of people like Peevski and the loans he received in exchange for two letters - DP. What is the role of people like the then Prime Minister Borisov, who was not even questioned in this case to say whether he had met with Messrs. Peevski and Tsvetan Vassilev. These were extremely uncomfortable questions that he was spared. But years later, Ms. Kirilova, then the city prosecutor of Sofia, said that all the work on the Corporate Banking case took place in Pepi Euroto's office, because he was the biggest, there were many folders.
That is, in the office of Pepi Euroto, Delyan Peevski's former colleague, all the operational and investigative work on the Corporate Banking case took place. The interrogations were carried out there, the operatives of investigators and prosecutors were there, and the documentation was stored there – in Pepi Euroto's office. And we expect this system to investigate crimes at the highest level?
This influence group grows over time. It rises in the system. And besides, it has only one task. And the task is not justice. The task is to increase its influence. And this is done not by investigating, but by doing exactly the opposite – by not investigating.
Now we can rather talk about a systemic group that is increasing its influence.
Unfortunately, at the moment when those in power, but I mean those who are informally in power, and those who are truly in power – those who appoint the top of the judiciary, and the political and administrative top – these people already have the self-confidence that they can literally sell everything to the public."
How to "sell" to the public
"They have sufficient media comfort. In fact, we have a very deceptive sense of freedom, of media pluralism and freedom of opinion, since we are on the Internet, we read small independent sites. We are on social networks, where everyone can express their opinion. But in fact, look at the big media. There, the hidden influence is actually increasing. I'm talking about BNT, bTV, Nova TV – these are the three media that politics cares about. Providing background and real statements and facts in context is currently the biggest enemy of those in power. And they are trying to cover this up too.
The goal is for us not to remember what happened literally two years ago, which is why so much is invested in hidden mechanisms of influence - whether through financial means, budgets, or other means of administrative influence.
However, all this generates a false normality, generates situations that would not exist in any normal, pluralistic, democratic country - a phantom politician who has never given a real interview to the media like Delyan Peevski cannot exist there. This is against all the rules by which a democracy should work. Because there must be some elementary transparency there, or at least some desire to have transparency must be demonstrated.
Not only him, let's add Boyko Borisov, who also has not given an interview for years. This doesn't impress anyone anymore. Because it is simulated through the media. That is where the legitimization of this abnormal, undemocratic behavior comes from, which is presented as normal.
I now know what a "synchronous" is -"synchronous" is when a politician comes out for two minutes, waves two photos with which he accuses another politician of something and hides back without answering questions. This is clearly "synchronous" and we should know it by now.