The wave of attacks against businessmen, the case of Sonya Koltuklieva and the resignation of the head of the National Security Service, Gen. Emil Tonev, raise questions about the work of the security services, the assessment of risk and possible political and economic dependencies. What are the circumstances surrounding the murder of Slavi Binev, are there grounds to look for connections between the individual cases and how should the actions of state institutions be assessed? National security expert Assoc. Prof. Dr. Asen Peychev spoke to FACT on these topics.
- Mr. Peychev, “perfect criminal storm“ during elections. Scandal with the National Security Service and the murder of businessman Slavi Binev. Scandal, murder or elections - which is more important?
- You are right, we are currently witnessing the so-called "perfect criminal storm", the beginning of which, however, is not rooted in the current scandal with the NSO and the murder of Slavi Binev. This process began with the murder of Vladimir Yankov - the Zagatoto, went through the assassination attempt against the Plovdiv football and construction boss Iliyan Filipov and escalated with that of Slavi Binev. It is striking that the last crime was committed at an extremely convenient moment for certain opposition leaders and political forces - precisely on the day of reflection before the presidential elections.
As for the incident with the NSO employees and the journalist Sonya Koltuklieva, in my opinion it was an unplanned incident, allowed by the state security due to underestimating the situation.
- How do you assess the actions of the NSO employees in the case of Sonya Koltuklieva? Are there any data on shortcomings in the organization, coordination or compliance with procedures that need to be checked?
- The escalated scandal and the crime committed on the eve of the vote were undoubtedly used as tools for political use in various directions. My personal assessment is that the actions of the NSO employees were correct, tactically justified and legal. In particular, the reaction of Lieutenant Martin Varadinov, who was subsequently detained by the Military Police and charged by the Military District Prosecutor's Office (acts that I consider absolutely illegal and improper) - was entirely within the scope of his official duties.
I believe that the breach in the security perimeter of the guarded person was due to an oversight on the part of the driver of the armored car. According to the current work instructions, the driver is obliged to immediately lock the vehicle doors after the VIP person gets in. In the situation, after closing the rear door, Lieutenant Varadinov headed towards the operational vehicle according to the regulations. Taking advantage of the driver's oversight, journalist Sonya Koltuklieva managed to open the car door.
After noticing his colleague's mistake, Varadinov reacted extremely professionally and found himself at the scene of the breach. His first and completely logical action was to remove Ms. Koltuklieva's hand from the handle. It is important to note that the car has a high level of armor protection (6th or 7th), which means that the doors are extremely heavy and opening them requires serious physical effort backwards with the whole body. When removing her hand from the car and the subsequent physical collision between the security guard and the journalist, inertia also led to the accidental fall of Ms. Koltuklieva.
- What are the legal powers of the NSO employees in such a situation? Where is the line between the performance of official duties and the possible excess of powers?
- In my opinion, Lieutenant Varadinov used the legal powers granted to him by virtue of the NSO law, the regulations for its implementation and the work instructions for NSO employees, in his right to use physical force or weapons. The line between the performance of official duties and powers is very thin. Whether there is a lapse and violations on the part of the security guard, we will accept the competent judgment of the service management after a thorough professional inspection. The intervention of the Military Police and the Military Prosecutor's Office gave rise to hysteria and the use of the case for political use by certain political circles. I raise the question again whether it is necessary to have such parasitic structures that carry out political orders, spend a huge budget, and employ lovers and relatives. Their activities can be carried out without any problems and much more professionally than the Ministry of Internal Affairs and the civilian prosecutor's office.
- Are the standards of conduct and professional communication observed by the NSO employees? What rules should be applied when interacting with journalists and citizens, especially in a tense situation?
- In my opinion, the standards of conduct and professional communication by the NSO employees have been observed. I rather think that ethics on the part of the journalists have been violated, especially in such a tense situation as the days before the elections.
- Who has the right to open the car door of a guarded person?
- With her actions, the journalist not only violated professional ethical norms, but also committed a gross violation of the regulatory framework, making a physical attempt to open the door of the official car. Such actions fall exclusively within the scope of the official duties and powers of the state security. As an exception, during official state events, this activity can only be carried out by employees of the “Protocol“ Directorate to the relevant department.
- What is the personal responsibility of the Chief of the National Security Service for the actions of his subordinates?
- In this particular case, it is unfounded to attribute direct or personal responsibility to the Chief of the National Security Service, General Emil Tonev. According to the administrative structure and hierarchy of the service, there are three levels of direct managers above Lieutenant Varadinov, who are responsible for the coordination and operational actions of their subordinates.
- To what extent can the resignation of Gen. Emil Tonev be considered as assuming responsibility and is this enough to clarify the case?
- The resignation of General Emil Tonev can be considered as a worthy moral act. We will see if it will be adopted, because we heard Prime Minister Rumen Radev say that this will be a decision of the Council of Ministers.
- How do you assess the murder of Slavi Binev from the point of view of national security? According to initial information, investigators are checking the version of unsettled financial relations, and we also have detainees. Is the case clear?
- From the point of view of national security, Slavi Binev is a very interesting figure. It is known that after the 1990s he was connected to the underground, but he is not the typical figure of people from this circle. Archon, a former MEP, has participated many times in political projects as a leading figure in them, an extremely popular personality in sports circles at the national and international level.
I am interested in the thesis of the investigators that always with some significant murder, the theory of unsettled financial relations, a love triangle and, in extreme cases, an unclear sexual orientation is pushed. The investigators conveniently forget about the three recently murdered businessmen, their political affiliation, their financing of certain political parties and individuals, their transition from one political camp to another.
- What needs to be clarified in order to establish the real motives and all the circumstances surrounding the crime?
- As for the case of Slavi Binev, an amount is cited for unsettled financial relations, which seems too insignificant to serve as a motive for such a serious crime. In the public sphere and circles close to the “gray sector“, the version is being promoted that he made commitments to the Turkish organization “Gray Wolves“ to provide assistance to their high-ranking member in resolving legal problems with the Bulgarian justice system. It is alleged that a large sum was received for this purpose, but the subsequent scandal surrounding the so-called. “Petrichki Escobar“ has thwarted the plans. To what extent are these claims true and whether these versions are just rumors… But there is real reason to believe so and this is a task that the investigative authorities have yet to clarify.
- Are there grounds to raise questions about risk assessment, prevention and interaction between the services, or can similar conclusions be drawn only after the investigation is completed? I am also referring to the recent murder of businessman Iliyan Filipov in Plovdiv? Somehow there was an accumulation of murders…
- At numerous lectures, conferences and other professional forums, I have regularly raised the issue of risk assessment, prevention and operational interaction between the security services. However, so far I have not encountered the necessary understanding or indications that real progress in this direction is possible at this stage. Each individual structure finds it extremely difficult to take action to share information with related or competing units.
In this context, the question arises: what are the services missing (or deliberately ignoring)? Iliyan Filipov in Plovdiv and Slavi Binev are entrepreneurs, said to be close to the ruling political circles. Both develop a large construction business. Both Filipov and Binev have connections with Turkish business entities. In my opinion, a deep political plan, combined with international connections and influence, is evident behind these assassinations. Historically, a change of political leadership is often followed by a redistribution in the business elite. In this regard, it is completely legitimate to look for a possible causal connection between these murders and the recent arrests of mayors from the MRF.