Boyko, Borislava, Barcelona

In recent days, we have seen something truly unprecedented. The Prosecutor General of Bulgaria submitted to the National Assembly more than 600 pages of documents and evidence on the pre-trial proceedings “Barcelonagate“, on which charges are to be filed against the former prime minister – the face Boyko Metodiev Borisov. Against this background, it is (to put it mildly) strange the complete lack of interest of the Bulgarian MPs in the materials deposited in the regular (and not in the secret) registry of the Parliament. As some have already spoken LawmakersI wanted to read, but I didn’t want to. Against this background, the “djurka” is delayed and delays the creation of the promised special commission to deal with the requested immunity of Borisov (and not only his). That is, there is no such committee and it is not clear when there will be – or how long it will work.

That is why we decided to make an analysis of the available information and arrange things chronologically. Although we do not have access to all the materials, we have one part from which certain conclusions can be drawn and the missing part can be extrapolated.

Evidence enters the NS

Let’s start with the first act. of the performance. On May 30, the Sofia City Prosecutor’s Office made a motivated proposal to the Prosecutor General to request the waiver of Borisov’s immunity. Only 3 days later Geshev Imported request in Parliament – i.e. on 2 June. At the same time, however, on the next day (June 3), in conditions of urgency, the Sofia City Prosecutor’s Office carried out Search and seizure in the apartment of Asen Lyubenov Naydenov, identified as the right hand and “gray Banker“Both Borisov and Valentin Vasilievich (Zlatev). What conclusion can we draw at this stage? That at the time when Geshev wanted Borisov’s immunity, he still did not have the data obtained during Naydenov’s search – in which computers, tablets, etc. were seized. That is, even without this data, the Sofia City Prosecutor’s Office was sure enough that MP B.B. was involved in money laundering. Subsequently, Geshev twice more (on June 6th and 8th) Submit additional materials in the National Assembly, including the latest translations of documents by the Spanish Prosecutor’s Office.

What the Prosecutor’s Office Says

We continue with a careful reading of Proc’s request. Hristov to the SCC to approve the protocol of search and seizure of June 3 (SCC respects the request). In it, the prosecutor claims that Borisov is the father of Borislava Yovcheva’s child. Here, however, he steps on testimonies, as well as “available in public sources

“‘ publications. Thus, it is not clear whether the Sofia City Prosecutor’s Office has additional, strong evidence. Because if the witnesses say one thing (without being able to prove it), then Borisov and Yovcheva deny (and will deny) – i.e. everything remains on the plane of word-versus-word. At the same time, it seems that the Prosecutor’s Office does not have DNA test, which in an indisputable way to establish the connection of Borisov with Miss Bikini (and with the child). If our conclusion is correct, it is A gross and serious omission. For serious crimes such as money laundering in large amounts, as well as for other misdemeanors punishable by more than 5 years in prison, the law provides for the forcible conduct of a DNA test (after permission from a court) – regardless of whether Borisov and Yovcheva agree. At least this is what our reading of the law indicates, without being expert penalists. It is stable and irrevocable proof, which does not degrade with time – i.e. such a test would always serve before the court, no matter how old the child is. If the prosecution has indeed failed to obtain this evidence, this seriously undermines the future success of the case in the trial phase. If, of course, it gets there at all.

In this line of thought, another hypothesis is possible.. The prosecution deliberately did not collect this irrefutable evidence in order to leave a door for negotiations between the person Borisov and the prosecutor Geshev. Because once such a test is done (and in the conditions of judicial review) – the rabbit jumps out of the bag and everything is Game Over for Borisov. And so for them the two remain a field for negotiations, or more precisely, bargaining as of the “flea market”. They also have time to bargain – especially if Radev delayed the decree for Geshev’s release pending the decisions of the Constitutional Court on the two constitutional cases initiated by Geshev as a defense strategy against his dismissal. That is, things are tied up and indirect indications weigh heavily in the direction of this conclusion – that proc. Christopher deliberately did not ask the court to perform a DNA test. Because only with witness statements the Borisov-Yovcheva connection cannot be proven. And if the witness is “shining” to them.

The second point that impresses is as follows. Proc. Hristov simply claims that the money given by Borisov for the house and the boutique They have no legal origin.He has no such income as a politician. And since the income part is indisputably true, it is not clear how the prosecution came to the conclusion that it was Borisov who gave the money. Does the Sofia City Prosecutor’s Office have any evidence in this regard, or is this just a declaratory statement? Perhaps the answer to this question lies in the materials sent by the Spanish Prosecutor’s Office, as well as in the Orders from Cyprus and Turkey. If the Prosecutor’s Office of the Kingdom of Spain has an indisputable reputation in one respect, it is precisely that – the ability to track and analyze illegal financial flows and “laundering” transactions, regardless of how many offshore and straw faces are hidden behind. Unfortunately, the native PRB can not boast of such capacity.

And for dessert we will mention a long-standing but not insignificant fact. As a district prosecutor in Popovo in the distant 2010 namely proc. Stefan Hristov was the man who
saved
President Parvanov (Agent Gotse from the State Security) from prosecution for poaching. By implementing a law that was repealed in 2000. Creative, isn’t it? It is also a fact that Hristov was subsequently seconded by Popovo to Spesta (now closed). Is now the same prosecutor to wash the Prime Minister (albeit an ex), regardless of whether the laundering will be voluntary or unintentional? Food for thought.

The political offensive

Against the backdrop of all this, in the end, the BSP took the initiative This week again he will try to bring the issue of Borisov’s immunity in plenary, so that it can be voted without waiting for the special committee at all (when and if it works at all and rules). Our personal opinion is that not enough votes will be collected at this stage “against” the immunity of the person Borisov, simply because almost no one has yet got acquainted with the 600 pages in the registry office. And not just because of that, there is a lot of subtle political calculations. However, it cannot be denied that the BSP’s move is politically strong. Sensing that there will soon be no commission, they try to force the issue in plenary. This will illuminate all political forces (as well as individual MPs) who will vote “for” Borisov, figuratively speaking. Our expectations are that BSP, ITN and Vazrazhdane will vote “against” the person B.B., GERB will obviously be “for”, while PPDB and MRF will abstain. In this way , Borissov will retain his immunity indefinitely. And when (and if) the committee in question will finally start working will be a litmus test for whether the change will actually turn out to be a replacement. Also such a litmus test will be how quickly the committee will pronounce — and in what direction. Because politics cannot and should not be used as a shield behind which to hide persons who have committed crimes such as money laundering and the like. Especially if 600 pages of evidence actually point to such crimes.

***

Разследващата журналистика е разузнаването на гражданите. BIRD се финансира от дарения. Ние не публикуваме реклами. Не получаваме държавни субсидии. Не разчитаме на грантове. Финансирането чрез малки дарения от читатели е гаранция за нашата независимост. Включете се, за да продължим да разкриваме злоупотреби и да държим отговорни властимащите. Използваме Вашите пари за хонорари на журналистите, командировки, изграждане и поддръжка на нашите информационни системи, такси за фирмени и имотни регистри у нас и по света, придобиване на техника и специално оборудване, осигуряване на нашата безопасност и други важни работни мисии. Важно: Ако дарявате всеки месец това ще ни даде възможност да планираме и организираме нашата работа. Благодарим Ви! Нас ни има, защото Вас Ви има!

This post is also available in: Български (Bulgarian) Français (French)