Bucharest Court's Reasoning in Georgescu Case Overturned by Court of Appeal
Judge Vlad Andriescu acknowledged DIICOT evidence but opted for the mildest preventive measure. Bucharest Court of Appeal ordered the preventive arrest of Călin Georgescu and Ionel Rusen.
Judge validated DIICOT evidence but refused arrest — Court of Appeal corrected the decision
Gândul obtained the full reasoning through which Bucharest Court initially ordered the investigation in a state of liberty for former presidential candidate Călin Georgescu and Ionel Rusen — a document showing that judge Vlad Andriescu essentially accepted the evidence presented by DIICOT prosecutors but chose to apply the mildest preventive measure available.
On Tuesday, Bucharest Court of Appeal reversed this decision by 180 degrees, ordering the preventive arrest of both. The superior court invoked the increased gravity of the charges, the high sentencing limits, the clear evidence and proof gathered by DIICOT, as well as the necessity of a firm signal from the judicial authorities.
What the trial judge established
In his reasoning, judge Andriescu began with the legal framework for preventive arrest, regulated by article 223 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The judge emphasised that both paragraphs of this article require the existence of a reasonable suspicion that the accused committed an offence — a condition which, in his view, the evidence in the case meets.
"In analysing the documents and files of the criminal investigation, the submissions of the accused, their defence representatives and the Public Ministry representative, the judge of rights and freedoms establishes that the Prosecution's proposal to apply the preventive measure of arrest against the accused Călin Georgescu and Ionel Rusen is unfounded with respect to the preventive measure proposed and should be rejected – only on this point", the document states.
Andriescu clarified that the necessity of arrest must also be analysed in light of the purpose and general conditions for applying preventive measures, as defined by articles 202, paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
The charges brought by the Prosecution
According to the reasoning, the Prosecution charged Georgescu and Rusen with two offences: formation of an organised criminal group, provided for by article 367, paragraphs 1 and 3 of the Penal Code, and fraud with particularly grave consequences, in continued form, provided for by article 244, paragraphs 1 and 2 of the Penal Code.
On the factual aspect, the judge noted that in September 2021, Călin Georgescu, Ionel Rusen and Massimiliano Arena allegedly formed an organised criminal group that acted in coordination, primarily on Romanian territory, until 18 October 2023. The group's purpose was to mislead Romanian businessmen regarding the possibility of accessing financing from financial institutions abroad, in order to obtain monetary guarantees.
Specifically, group members allegedly misled Răzvan Leu, representative of SC Real Concrete Land SRL, by presenting false circumstances as real: that he could obtain financing of 6,000,000 euros through a contract with an institution called Wealth Bank, which they claimed operated on British territory — in reality, the entity was based in the Comoros Islands. Rusen and Arena allegedly claimed to hold management positions within this institution.
Under the pretext of a compulsory guarantee, Leu was allegedly induced to transfer 2,500 euros and subsequently 1,000,000 euros, on 22 and 28 December 2021, from his company's account to an account actually belonging to Migom Bank Ltd, based in the Commonwealth of Dominica, opened at Incore Bank AG in Switzerland.
At a later stage, by presenting as genuine the possibility of increasing the credit to 15,000,000 euros, group members allegedly convinced Leu to transfer a further 100,000 euros on 20 January 2022 to the same Migom Bank Ltd account opened at Incore Bank AG in Switzerland.
Meetings in Bucharest, Câmpulung Muscel and London
According to the criminal investigation files cited in the reasoning, meetings between those involved took place both in Bucharest and in Câmpulung Muscel municipality in Argeș county, as well as on British territory in London. Georgescu, Rusen, Arena and Ion Negoescu allegedly attended these meetings.
Difference in interpretation between the two courts
The document reviewed by Gândul shows that judge Andriescu did not contest the existence of the evidence and proof brought by DIICOT — he explicitly validated it. His disagreement with the prosecutors' indictment concerned exclusively the choice of preventive measure, with the judge opting for investigation in a state of liberty instead of preventive arrest.
Bucharest Court of Appeal held that this option did not properly reflect the gravity of the charges and the social danger of the offences under investigation, ordering the preventive arrest of both accused. The superior court emphasised the high sentencing limits provided for the two charges and invoked the necessity of firm intervention by judicial authorities as an additional argument for deprivation of liberty.
Source: Gândul