How the head of the Gendarmerie explains the accusations according to which he had illegally approved the payment of hundreds of overtime hours



[ad_1]

The Romanian Gendarmerie chief, Colonel Bogdan Enescu, reacted to Digi24 about the case in which he is accused of illegally approving hundreds of overtime hours, in a state of emergency, and illegally collecting tens of thousands of lei. Enescu says that “it is information that has no real basis and the truth will come out.”

Bogdan Enescu: As I have said on other occasions, at this time, and this aspect is known, there is a criminal record in the DNA registered about a month ago as a result of the circulation in public space of some information on the subject on which you have spoken with you before As you know, at this stage of the criminal process the criminal investigation is not public, so I have the obligation to reserve the supply of data and information on this case.

But, strictly on your question, I confirm that at this time I have not received any official information, a summons from the Judicial Power to appear before them and I assure you that to the extent that it exists, I will deal with it. as quickly as possible, with the greatest availability, since I have a personal and institutional interest in clarifying this case and defending both the image of the institution and my professional reputation.

So as for the quality that you refer to in this file, I cannot confirm or deny this quality, as I have specified that I have no official data and information in this regard.

Moderator: Prosecutors say you would have been approved to work and pay nearly 900 additional hours.

It is information that has no real basis and the truth will come out. I tell you, then, for information only one detail. In one month, during the state of emergency, in which my work was developed exclusively from the professional point of view most of the time, 153 overtime hours were recorded, this is the highest number of overtime hours. And another technical aspect is the fact that paid overtime, because here there are two technical elements, the working time, actually, the evidence that exists on this aspect and the paid overtime that is within the limit established by the law, without invading.

Those overtime hours were for a month, during the month of March in which the state of emergency was established and in no case does it reflect reality, because the working time and the performance of functions is longer, but I considered that common sense and without affect, precisely because I did not want to force the note in this regard, I limited myself to this record, but I insist that there are technical issues and I would like to clarify and exclude that this situation is present due to any action or inaction of the undersigned since the record of overtime, your pay and the observance of your procedure in relation to your pay belong to structures within the unit over which I have no influence and their functions are carried out and executed in accordance with the norms of force.

Moderator: I understand that you were limited to a certain number of overtime that you spent there because it seemed like common sense to you and that the reality would have been that you would have worked several hours. So how is it, do you think these overtime?

No, I do not put them as I think. It is a record prepared by a structure within the General Inspection of Gendarmerie that deals with the recording of these hours not only in my case but also in the case of other colleagues who work in the institution and I told them that due to the operational situation that we face During the state of emergency, during the alert state and at present, the workload and responsibilities of a person temporarily in this position are greater and require more time than the normal work schedule of eight hours. And the other technical aspects will be specified and clarified by the prosecutors in the investigative activity.

Moderator: Another question would be related to the overtime hours that the former heads of the gendarmerie would have approved, we are talking about Colonel Ionuț Sindile and General Constantin Florea.

Bogdan Enescu: I don’t know exactly if that happened. Given that there are many financial and accounting situations and the nature of the records and the management of funds and budget allocations that we also handle, a multitude of documents that I pass, that I have to process, for I view, approve, sign, study them I do not know if there are such documents or such situations at this time, but if they exist they will be made available to the judicial bodies.

Moderator: This alone, which is now in DNA, came to be investigated by anti-corruption prosecutors after the notification made by the General Directorate of Internal Audit of the Ministry of the Interior, how is it explained? This notification came from the Ministry of the Interior.

As far as I know, the notification or the respective criminal file was registered a month ago, at the time when at the level of the Romanian Gendarmerie structure there was no ongoing investigation or verification of the control body or the internal audit department . These took place later, some are still in progress and one of the legal ways of notifying the commission of certain acts according to the criminal procedure code is the official notification. I do not know if we are in such a situation or there is another form of notification that is the basis of this case. Less important who has notified, it is important to clarify these issues so that public opinion is not left with a distorted image.

Publisher: Adrian Dumitru

[ad_2]