Motivation of judges in the case of the policeman of IPJ Constanța accused of taking bribes!

  • The policeman allegedly told the whistleblower: “I’m not making fun of you, I promise, yes? I promise you that in a maximum of 3 months you will have a permit on hand. Because I’m going to arrange. I just want to change the plaintiff and that’s it,” according to investigators.

Constana Court judges defended their decision to convict the constable (GSN), of Valu lui Traian Police Station – IPJ Constanța, to three years and six months in prison, with death penalty, for the offense of bribery in an ongoing form (deed from May 2019 to March 2020) .

In the case, investigators showed that between May and September 2019, the policeman claimed and received from a disapproving witness, in several installments, the total amount of 6000 lei and merchandise (drinks and alcoholic foods), in order to solve it. Preferring a criminal case related to facts in the road system.

More specifically, he claimed and received money and property in order to carry out acts inconsistent with his character as a criminal investigation body (obtaining false public documents or hearing a false witness) and a prosecutor’s proposal to close the criminal case in which the whistleblower was investigated for a road safety offense.

Along with the guilty verdict, the court deduced from the duration of the applicable prison sentence the duration of arrest, pre-trial detention and house arrest, from 08.18.2020 at 15.35 until 09.01.2021.

The judges have maintained the judicial control measure issued against the defendant, for a maximum period of 60 days, and this will be verified by 29.08.2022 at the latest, inclusive.

The court ordered the special confiscation of the defendant in the amount of 8000 lei (6000 lei and 2,000 lei representing the value of the goods received).

According to the Code of Criminal Procedure, the completion of the criminal investigation and the referral of the indictment to the court cannot contradict the principle of presumption of innocence.

To motivate the decision, the court ruled that the defendant had received, in several installments, the total amount of 6000 lei and food and, respectively, alcoholic beverages (30 bottles of whiskey, 10 bottles of champagne, and mutton) as a result of the charge. He promised to take steps to expedite investigations, respectively to adopt an appropriate solution in the case of the Prosecutor’s Office attached to the Court of Constanta, in which the whistleblower is being investigated for the offense of driving a vehicle on public roads under the influence of alcohol.

The file also shows some recordings between the whistleblower and the police officer, hence we give a short clip:

Policeman: Yes, do you want me to give you your money back?

Whistleblower: No, I don’t.

Policeman: (…)? Will I give you your money back?

Whistleblower: I don’t, I don’t want to..

Policeman: (…)? Will I give you your money back?

Whistleblower: I want this statement to be resolved once in a while…Yeah, that’s all there is to it.

Policeman: I’m not making fun of you, I promise, okay? I promise you that within a maximum of 3 months you will have a permit on hand. Because I’m going to arrange. I just want to change the prosecutor and that’s it.”

Being a defendant, during the criminal investigation, in the presence of the chosen defense attorney, he essentially denied the charges against him. He stated that he had not received any payment from the whistleblower in any context.

As for the other benefits that the whistleblower showed that he handed them over to him, the defendant explained to the investigators that he had already received 6 bottles of whiskey and 6 or 10 (he no longer remembers exactly) champagne, and would return the money. I paid to buy it.

The court ordered the execution of the penalty of imprisonment, given the seriousness of the act, the degree of perceived social danger, but also in relation to the person of the offender, the lack of efforts on his part to eliminate or reduce the consequences and the fact that his possibilities for correction are limited, since he denied the commission of the act.

Documentation source / motivation National Jurisprudence Portal –


Law 190 of 2018, in Article 7, states that journalistic activity is exempt from certain provisions of the GDPR, if a balance is maintained between freedom of expression and protection of personal data.

The information in this article is in the public interest and is obtained from open public sources.

Read also

Three years in prison with suspension! Stark near the headquarters of RAR! How a former Tulcea County Council Chief Inspector was caught by DNA! (document)

Leave a Comment