The Nicu Marcu and Comvex cases - evidence of the failure of justice

The scandal sparked by the documentary made by Recorder regarding the captured justice and the mechanism described by the judges and prosecutors who spoke to journalists is strikingly similar to what has been happening for years regarding criminal and civil cases related to the manipulation of the capital market in our country, cases related to events that occurred when the Financial Supervisory Authority was led by Nicu Marcu or to previous events, such as the takeover by the Dragoi clan of the Comvex company, but also of SIF1, SIF4 and SIF5.

Nicu Marcu's case is also featured in the documentary made by Recorder, where it is recalled that anti-corruption prosecutor Neculai Cârlescu notified the Superior Council of Magistracy and the Judicial Inspection this year, accusing Marius Voineag, the chief prosecutor of the DNA, of abusively removing him from the criminal files he was working on. One of the files targeted Nicu Marcu, the former president of the Financial Supervisory Authority, as a suspect in the Euroins bankruptcy case. Prosecutor Cârlescu accused the fact that he was removed from the respective file because Marius Voineag had a friendly relationship with Nicu Marcu, because the latter had directly hired Camelia Vlădescu, the sister of the DNA chief, at the ASF, without a competition.

Later, on March 12, 2025, after Neculai Cârlescu left the DNA, the criminal file opened in the name of Nicu Marcu was closed by Marius Voineag's subordinates, and on March 28, 2025, free of any criminal record, Nicu Marcu was appointed director general of the National Registry of State Secret Information (ORNISS).

Also in the documentary Recorder - Captured Justice - it is shown in detail how Marian Vanghelie managed to delay the criminal file before the court by granting countless deadlines and even by changing the magistrates on the court panel.

Marian Vanghelie's situation is similar to that in the file in which Raymond de Rubeis sued Comvex, a file that dragged on in the dock of the Constanţa Court for over three years without any witnesses being heard or any other evidence being administered.

Why? Because what we called in the BURSA newspaper as the Dragoi clan invoked through lawyers all kinds of civil procedural exceptions, challenged judges after judges, until a magistrate desirable for those from Comvex was appointed to the file.

Here we refer to file 27863/3/2019 processed by the Constanţa Tribunal and where those from Comvex, through lawyers, dissatisfied that a judge rejected their invoked exceptions, requested his recusal, a recusal accepted by the court. In place of the respective judge, another magistrate was appointed by the court, who had been initially challenged by the plaintiff Rubeis, but returned to the Comvex file, although he filed a request to abstain showing that he has a friendly relationship with the lawyer of one of the defendants. The request to abstain and the request to reject were sent to a single magistrate, who rejected both, as the BURSA newspaper wrote.

Read UN NOU TERMEN ÎN DOSARUL COMVEX Tribunalul Constanţa - blocat în excepţii, abţineri şi recuzări

This situation lasted until January 2023, when the fourth judge assigned to resolve the case and, after 26 deadlines given over three years by the Constanţa Tribunal, decided to proceed with the administration of evidence.

Read DOSARUL COMVEX SA Magistraţii refuză audierea lui Dan Drăgoi şi a lui Viorel Panait

Do you think everything ended at the next hearing, the 27th deadline granted in the file for April 2023? It took another year, until May 23, 2024, for the Constanţa Tribunal, i.e. the trial court, to pronounce a sentence - rejecting the request formulated by Raymond de Rubeis -, almost 5 years after the opening of the file, at the 35th deadline and after five judges entered the file one after another.

Regarding the Comvex case, we recall that just as the Nicu Marcu file was closed by the DNA, the criminal complaints filed by Raymond de Rubeis with DIICOT and DNA were closed, without the prosecutors who investigated the respective files concerning Dan Drăgoi and Viorel Panait taking into account important evidence existing in the investigated cases.

Read SOLUŢIE SIMILARĂ CELEI DATĂ DE DIICOT DNA clasează plângerea penală în dosarul Comvex

Read ORDONANŢĂ DE CLASARE, DUPĂ TREI ANI DE CERCETARE SECRETĂ DIICOT nu vede grup infracţional organizat la Comvex SA

We note that journalists are not prosecutors, nor judges, nor judicial police officers. Their articles present only some facts, often clear and obvious, without any nuance, which should be the basis for the authorities to initiate criminal investigations and civil lawsuits.

Such were the articles in the BURSA newspaper about Nicu Marcu, the former president of the Financial Supervisory Authority, and those about the Dragoi clan. Unfortunately, both the DIICOT and DNA prosecutors did not take into account the obvious evidence in the file, and the judges were prevented in certain civil cases to enter into the investigation of the merits and the hearing of witnesses, until the panel became desirable for those about whom the BURSA newspaper has written a whole series of articles in recent years regarding their suspicious activity.