Transfers from a Russian bank against the constitutional referendum and votes for the "Victory" bloc

During the electoral period related to the presidential elections and the constitutional referendum on 20.10.2024, especially in the months of April–August 2024, Dobînda Veronica, located in the village of Trifești, Rezina district, acting as an executor and in conjunction with other unidentified persons, allegedly offered and facilitated the transfer of monetary funds to several voters (Țurcan Teodor, Draguțan Natalia, Condrea Svetlana) in order to determine them to exercise their right to vote in favor of the political bloc “Victory” and the candidate supported by it.

The alleged acts include both the direct handing over of amounts (approximately 2000 MDL / 200 USD) and facilitating transfers of about 15,000 Russian rubles (≈2000 MDL) through accounts opened at “PromsvyazBank” (PSB), with the direct involvement of the accused. In the case of one of the individuals, the influence allegedly targeted voting against the amendment of the Constitution for the purpose of Moldova's accession to the EU.

First court: Acquitted

Not applicable (acquitted)

The court found deficiencies (errors of law, omissions, errors in the prosecutors' interpretation of the general norms of criminal law) in the formulation of the accusation: the alleged acts concerned different persons, periods, and circumstances, but were unclear treated as a single offense in the sense of art. 28, art. 30 of the Criminal Code. According to the court, the alleged acts should have been analyzed as distinct episodes, each subject to an autonomous assessment in terms of typicality, guilt, and evidence, an aspect that was not clearly realized in the indictment.

Furthermore, the specific act of promise, offering, or giving money was not individualized/proven, and the alleged involvement in opening PSB accounts was not considered equivalent to the handing over of electoral bribes. The court found a lack of direct or indirect conclusive evidence regarding the defendant's assumption of the act of handing over the financial means, as well as the absence of a direct causal link between any sums handed over and the exercise of the right to vote in a certain sense. At the same time, the direct qualified intent aimed at determining voters to vote in a certain way or to abstain from voting was not proven, the witness statements being assessed as contradictory and inconsistent.