The High Court of Cassation and Justice (ICCJ – Supreme Court) has ruled on Monday the replacement of house arrest by judicial control in Dan Sova’s CET file. The sentence is final, taken by court of divergence made up by three judges.
Senator Dan Sova was indicted by the National Anti-Corruption Directorate (DNA) in the file he is accused of bribe taking EUR 100,000 for concluding several contracts between CET Govora and a law firm.
The PSD Senator was placed on December 4 under house arrest by ICCJ.
In the file are also being investigated Mihai Balan, general director of CET Govora and Constantin Lepadat, economic director of CET Govora, charged with two deeds of abuse of office.
During October 2011 and July 2014 Dan Sova claimed money and received EUR 100,000 from the denouncer, in exchange for influence peddling to Mihai Balan for concluding contracts of legal assistance with a certain law firm, amounting to EUR 10,000 per month.
The investigators mention that such contracts were not needed, as at the time CET Govora SA already had a law department with six legal advisers. Mihai Balan produced damage of RON 1,301,410 to the company.
“During 2006-2008, Dan Sova convinced Mihai Balan and Mihai Balanto to conclude two agreements for legal assistance in the terms imposed by him, in breach of duties or the legal provisions on procurement in force at the time. Specifically, on March 1, 2006 and on March 19, 2008, SC CET Govora concluded with the Law Firm ‘Sova and Associates’ two separate contracts for legal advice/consultation/representation, including the payment of fees for success of EUR 667,409.20 and of RON 1,822,928.24 respectively,” a DNA release issued last November reads.
According to DNA, the two separate contracts were concluded under the background of a valid contract of SC CET Govora for legal assistance on the same subject, concluded with the same Law firm ‘Sova and Associates’.
The prosecutors claim that these activities have caused damages to SC CET Govora worth over EUR 667,000 and more than RON 1.8 million and led to an unjustly benefit for ‘Sova and Associates’.