2024-02-14 08:50:44
“We have learned that the Supreme Judicial Council can no longer turn a blind eye to data as it did years ago. The Eight Dwarfs investigation is from 2020. The “Quick Check List” with the participation of Martin Bojanov-Notary is from 2021. In the beginning, there was no institutional reaction.”
Andrey Yankulov, senior legal expert at the Anti-Corruption Fund, told bTV.
According to him, because of the increased media interest and public meeting, the SJC demonstrated a desire to counteract these “phenomena”.
“We see in the open the behavior of the members of the SJC, as well as the leadership of the prosecutor’s office, who did not bother to deal with these problems, but now they are quite active. Whether someone pulling the strings and authorized them is a matter of speculation,” he added.
“For me, there was no doubt that the networks of Bojanov and Petyo Petrov reached the heights of justice. The networks are not only concentrated in the judiciary, but also through controlled media the same results are achieved – who would want defamatory articles spewed against him. It’s a handy lever for exerting influence against inconvenient people. The normal reaction is to try to avoid it. “There are few people like Judge Tsarigradska who try to counteract,” Yankulov stressed.
“The profile of the magistrates who became part of the network is not uniform. There are people who are looking for career growth. Others want materially advantaged. Others have classified documents. There is no template to be drawn from,” he commented.
“Very easily a person from the criminal contingent can be turned into an associate of the police or other services. On the one hand, an umbrella is created, and on the other hand, its relationship with law enforcement authorities is legitimized. This is an activity that is widespread – legitimization of people from the criminal contingent. This can easily be done. “Many people are surprised about the change of the non-uniform civil number of Martin Bojanov-Notary, about the blue jar of his car,” emphasized Yankulov.
“Bozhanov is a person whose genesis is from the petty criminal contingent. He is a man who hails from the low-level criminal contingent. He was engaged in real estate fraud, but over the years his influence increased. It goes so far as to be able to enter the territory and the Specialized Court and Prosecutor’s Office as if he were the president. These are relationships built over years. None of them have acquired their position overnight in the networks of informal influence in justice,” commented the expert.
“When dealing with ‘clients’ to whom you promise to solve their problems in justice or create problems for other people, you need to give the impression that you are somebody. It’s a show of power. For me, the conclusion that there is no material trace is impossible. Several inspections were carried out by the Ministry of the Interior. Various officials of the Ministry of Internal Affairs came to the “Anti-corruption Fund” to talk to us about the patrol cars in front of the “Eight Dwarfs”, and nothing came of them – the cars did not have GPS, it was impossible to determine exactly who the cars were. Now one of the numbers of the cars that were parked in front of the SS club has been released to the media. It was recorded by Google Earth. This car, which looks like a police car, can be checked to see if it was one and who were the officials who drove it. In this way, it will be established who the officers were who guarded this club,” he added.
“We may not have hope that something will come out of the investigation and the parliamentary commission, but there is no other way, other than the institutional one. What we could as a civil organization to illuminate the networks, we did. What the media could do with bringing the subject into focus, they did. The Parliament exercises control over the work of the Ministry of Internal Affairs and the Anti-Corruption Commission. Regarding investigative secrecy – the problem is big. It is related to the monopoly of the prosecutor’s office on who should be investigated and who should be accused. De-monopolization of prosecution can overcome these deficits. We have limited hypotheticals like this where the potential investigation concerns the institution to investigate. There should be an opportunity for another body to conduct the investigation. It turns out that the institution directly involved should be investigated. There can be no expectation that there will be impartiality,” Yankulov explained.