The authorities responsible for the investigation of the bank fraud and the beneficiaries should reach a compromise that would help get back a part of the funds stolen from the banking system, political commentator Cornel Ciurea said in a public debate titled “Why was bank theft brought back into focus?”, which was held by IPN News Agency.
“I’m not for the very harsh punishment of those who committed this fraud. The other chapter, the recovery of money, seems much more interesting to me. If it’s possible to get back the money, I would plead for much milder punishments. The money that belongs to the state should be restored in a maximum possible amount. I would even accept a bargain in this regard and this would be not a state policy, but rather a political move,” stated Cornel Ciurea.
However, the political commentator noted the Moldovan judiciary should decide what punishment to impose on each of the persons involved in the bank fraud in the absence of any political interference.
As to the case of Veaceaslav Platon, which the prosecutor general classed as fabricated, Cornel Ciurea said this is an interesting case as Platon was convicted and already served a part of the punishment.
“In such conditions, we would witness am embarrassing situation. Mister Platon could be set free and tried further outside custody and could be ultimately acquitted. So, we are witnessing hallucinating developments,” stated the commentator.
He concluded that the bank fraud case had been omitted for a period for particular reasons, but was now brought back into focus in particular political contexts.
The debate “Why was bank theft brought back into focus?” was the 136th edition of the series of debates “Developing political culture through public debates” that is supported by the Hanns Seidel Foundation.