Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 20

COURSE OF THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT

I. INTERPRETERS

A. Wrongly sworn:
1. Court Record April 16, 1999 - Interpreter Anatoli Kossev sworn under art. 291,
p. 1 par. 6;
2. Court Record April 21, 1999 - Interpreter Roumen Dimitrov Sukarev sworn
under art. 291, p. 9, para 3
3. Court Record April 21, 1999 – p. 26, para 3 – payment to interpreter Maria
Topurova – not sworn in this court record
4. Court Record April 22, 1999 – p. 27, para 17 – Irena Ivanova Ivanova sworn art
291, CC
5. Court Record April 22, 1999 – p. 34 para 4 – Stanimir Stanchev Stanchev – art
291
6. Court Record April 23, 1999 - p. 38 para 3 – Svetla Borislavova Stefanova – art
291
7. Court Record April 26, 1999 – p.. 48 Soukarev
8. Court Record April 27, 1999 – p. 60 Stefanova para 4;
9. Court Record April 27, 1999 – p. 64 Stanimir Stanchev – para 5
10. Court Record April 28, 1999 – p. 68, para 11 – Irena Ivanova
11. Court Record April 28, 1999 – p. 78 para 7 - Soukarev
12. Court Record April 29, 1999 – p. 85 para 2 – Soukarev
13. Court Record April 30, 1999 – p. 86 para last - Stefanova
14. Court Record September 7, 1999 – p. 90, last para Kossev
15. Court Record September 8, 1999 – p. 104, para last but one Kossev
16. Court Record September 8, 1999 – p. 110, para 2 Soukarev
17. Court Record September 9, 1999 – p. 113, para 3 Kossev
18. Court Record September 10, 1999 – p. 117, § 5, Stanchev
19. Court Record September 13, 1999– p. 127, para 2, Kossev
20. Court Record September 14, 1999– p. 133, para 6 – Soukarev
21. Court Record September 15, 1999– p. 142, para 6 – Kossev;
22.

B. TRANSLATIONS
1. Court Record April 16, 1999 – att. Lulcheva – p. 3, para 2 – protest documents
not translated into English;
- Prosecutor Stoyanov – p.4, para 1 – defence
allegation without merit; proceedings conducted in the Bulgarian language according to
law; obligation to orally translate; defendant had the exclusive privilege outside of the
frames of law to receive the Act of Indictment translated in writing and not only orally –
“this not within our obligations”

1
- the court – p. 7, para 3 - the request is upon the
essence and under the provisions of art. 281, CCP – concerning the evidence – the court
may exclude them from the evidential material under the case.

C. PROTESTS AGAINST INTERPRETERS

1. Court Record December 9, 1999– Michael Kapoustin, p. 151, para 9; p. 152


para 1 – against translator Kossev; p. 152 para 2 – evidence filed under art. 290
(2), CC against translators appointed.
- the court - Court Record
December 14, 1999 – p. 172, para last – “As far as the motion and objection for bias of
the translators/interpreters appointed during the stage of preliminary procedure and
during the judicial inquiry are concerned and especially against interpreter Kossev
grounded upon the fact that he is an official in Department “International Relations” of
the Ministry of Interior, the latter cannot be accepted as justified and this does not lead to
the conclusion for bias when effecting the interpretation neither during the preliminary
procedure, nor during the judicial inquiry. The interpreters have been warned about their
liability as per art. 290 (2), CCP and some of the grounds as per art. 25 item 1 through 5
and items 7 through 9, CCP applicable to interpreters are not present against them and
they were not specified concretely by the defendant and his defence.”

2. Court Record January 10, 2000 - Prosecutor Stoyanov – p. not numbered,


subsequent 13, para 1 – “...In vol. 6 on sheet 45 a Ruling for appointing translator
Kossev is attached. I do not know what the objection of the defence is and more
specifically the objection of the defendant. As far as I understood he used to work
at a certain time for the security services. This argument is not serious since
numerous interpreters have passed. The fact that interpreter Kossev has been a
policeman does not mean that he gave wrong translations. He interpreted in the
court-room as well but the defendant did not object to this.
- Michael Kapoustin - §3 – “... I strongly
object against his (Prosecutor Stoyanov) statements as being unmotivated. Translations of
materials during the arrest was made by A. Kossev and not by 12 – 15 translators. They
served Mr. Kirov and Georgiev. You pointed out my complaint to you – I gave arguments,
responded that under art. 11, item 2 I have not had at my disposal adequate translations,
that the number was not sufficient and the documents had not been translated to me. I
challenged Mr. Stoyanov to submit to me a document in the English language in the
arrest. There was not a single document translated... I remind the Court that relied on
Kossev to tell the truth. Prosecutor Stoyanov asks what objections I have against Kossev.
I cite who Kossev is. He is the same person who received and supported the investigative
case, as an official when he has collected and supported evidence against the defendant. I
cite the letter from July 1995 to Kossev from the police officer who sustains accusations
by which this police officer considers I have to be accused. Art. 25 forbids to a policeman
or other official participating in collecting of evidence to participate as an interpreter.
Prosecutor Stoyanov asks why I have not protested – I had not been given these
documents – I had to do this myself – I had to establish that Kossev was in the police
from att. Lukanov. How can I find out the truth about which no one has told me. Now I

2
know and am protesting. It’s not right for me to rely on a policeman who had personal
interest for me being sentenced to interpret or to submit translations on my behalf.
Concerning the November 30, 1998 Ruling about which Mr. Styanov says it had been
given to me in prison I do not know how many weeks after the detention, he still
considers that a foreign citizen does not need to comprehend what has been written – art.
6 (3), ECHR, art. 5 (4) of the Constitution of RB Stoyanov was obliged to submit to me
or to find translations for me of these documents but he does not think that my rights
matter...”
-the court – p. 15 subsequent, para 2 –“...
the objection that translation during preliminary proceeding was effected only by Kossev
– ungrounded. By a subsequent Ruling for appointing of a translator a fourth translator
has been appointed...”;

3. Court Record January 10, 1999 - att. Lukanov – p. 18 subsequent – para 9 – “I


request the Court to start again the judicial investigation since for this judicial
panel there is no legal hearing held so far due to the fact that in the court record
dd. April 23 on p. 11 the defendant has not been warned about the rights he has
under art. 272, CCP – this has not been covered terminologically nor gramatically
– the legal category Challenge.; para 10 Interpreters sworn under art. 291, CC –
interpreters’ liability is considered in art. 290 (2). “The objection of the defendant
is completely grounded and the request to remove them – obviously they bear no
penal liability after having not been warned under the respective text. I request the
judicial inquiry to start again.
- Prosecutor Stoyanov – p. 19 subs., para 2
– it is important that they have been warned upon the record. The figures do not matter –
this is the systematic place in the CC; whether this will bespecified at all or not is of no
substantial importance. Concerning the fact that the word Challenge was not explained to
the defendant is of no importance – he appeared then with a translator and 2 defence
counsels. the defendant had defence and translators.
- att. Lukanov – para 3 – objection may be
made against a witness. Challenge is something different – this is what art. 272, CCP
reads.
- Michael Kapoustin – para 4 “Mr. M.
Stoyanov and my defence counsel are not accused in crime but I am and it is my right to
understand procedure. The fact that lawyers are present and if we broaden the principle
and the hypothesis of Stoyanov why should I attend the process? Let just the lawyer and
Mr. Stoyanov do it. The rights we have to defend is my right to understand and to explain
to my defense counsel and not just to stand and not understand what is going on.
According to art. 265(?), CCP – exact application of law – not this or that article”
- the court – para 5 – finds the request for
starting again the judicial inquiry without merit and it should not be honoured.; technical
error; it is apparent that unlike preliminary procedure the court has warned the
interpreters abt their liability for wrong translation as interpreters and not as experts; in
the preliminary proceeding it is important to write correctly the text of the CC, unlike this
in the judicial phase the interpreters have been warned not only by text as it has been
recorded in the protocol but orally as well.

3
4. Court Record January 11, 2000 - Michael Kapoustin – p. 24, para 5, 6 and 7 –
filing a motion under art. 310 and 311, CCP to SCC, in case it rejects it – to send
it to the SAC – omissions in the court-record “stunned by the errors and omissions
in the court-record. I read my statement from a written text in English and it was
translated into English which I had given to the interpreter who used it all the
time. ... errors completely change the meaning of my statements”
- Prosecutor Stoyanov – p. 24
last para + p. 25 para 1 – 2:
penal proceedings to be held in
the Bulgarian language – art.
11, CCP; translators to be
appointed to persons who do
not understand Bulgarian;
“There is no obligation under
our legislation the documents
under the whole case to be
translated for the defendant.
What has been translated so far
is due to the good will of the
court. Half of the Act of
Indictment has been translated
in writing.”
- Att. Lukanov – p.25, para 7 – “The prosecutor
stated that the defendant malpractices rights due to the mercy of court. This is according
art. 6 item 3, ECHR.

5. Court Record January 11, 2000 - Michael Kapoustin – p. 54 para – translation


of expertise – terms – deposit & investment – Bulgarian [vlojeni], [vneseni] -
such a mess!! – cannot translate this none of the Bulgarian words means only
deposit or only investment – they are not terms used by professionals;
professionals use either [investicia] -= investment; or deposit = deposit (Engl.).
The word [vlog] is used generally as deposit and the word [vlojenie] might be
used both ways – as deposit or investment. Here you were told that [vneseni] is
OK = equal to invested and [vlojeni]=deposited and you agreed to this

II. LEGAL CONSTRUCTION OF ACCUSATION IMPOSSIBLE

1. Court Record April 16, 1999 – Att. Lulcheva – p. 2, par. 2 – to end the case and
send it back to SCPO for additional investigation – accusation legally impossible,
which makes the defence impossible; unclear and mutually exclusive legal
qualifications put together intolerably infringe upon the right for defence of the
defendant.
- Prosecutor Stoyanov – p. 4, para 2 – “Concerning
the legal construction of the accusation under art. 203 and 211, CC I share the same
opinion, which I have expressed in writing in the materials under the case. I want to point

4
out that in our legal theory a construction of the facilitating crime fraud is impossible.
Judicial practice is rich enough in this direction, more specifically concerning persons
financially responsible [МОЛ], therefore this construction as a legal construction – 203 in
conjunction with 211, CC is not unknown in our legal doctrine. It is not the time and
place to discuss whether this construction is possible or not. This is in favour of the
defence of the defendant since it might eventually lead to an acquittal for him. In this
instance a malpractice of his rights [злоупотреба с права] and power takes place. This is
the so- called malpractice of rights. Therefore I ask the court to not honour the request to
send the case back to the SCPO and to proceed with it.”
-The court – p. 6, para 3 – finds that the request of
the Defence of the defendant for ending of the judicial proceeding and sending back the
case to SCPO to eliminate the procedural violations is without merit and should not be
honoured. The issue of absurdity of the legal construction is an issue of essence and the
court will consider it as per art. 299 (1), CCP. It is within the rights of prosecution to file,
to support or not incriminated perpetrations and in this very instance it concerns a
perpetration under art. 203, CC and the facilitating crime is under art. 211, CC which is
subject to a lighter punishment.

2. Court Record April 21, 1999 – the defendant - p. 12, para 4 “I do not
understand what I have been accused for. As I have made my explanation in
writing, the legal and factual structure of the accusation is confusing for me. I do
not understand the crime for which I have been accused....; para 5: Without
further investigation i am not capable of defending myself adequately; para 6
Therefore I cannot give any response to the questions posed to me. I will exercise
my right not to give explanations at present.”

III. EXTRADITION

1. Court Record April 16, 1999 – Att. Lulcheva – p. 2 par. 3 – decision for
extradition not applied since the court cannot assess whether defendant has been
sued in Germany
- The court – p. 6 para 6 - not applying the
extradition decision does not violate the right for defence of the defendant since this does
not contradict ECE, art. 18, item 2; In volume 5 – Extradition on sheet 15 a verbal note is
attached from the FRG Embassy to the MFA of RB advising the Ministry that this note
together with the permission for extradition is the only authoritative document for
effecting the extradition. Additional documents like the decision for admissibility can not
be submitted.

2. Court Record April 21, 1999 – the defendant - - p. 10, para 2- filing addition to
the Response – objection dd. March 31, 1999 in connection with his request to
stop the proceeding since it refers to accusations for which extradition has not
been requested.

3. Court Record April 21, 1999 – p. 25, para 2 – the court – “Concerning the
objection that the Act of Indictment filed sustains an accusation for elements

5
[sastavi] other than the ones for which extradition was requested the court finds
that the latter is without merit since it refers to different elements [sastavi] of one
and the same crime, which concerns the same circle of social relations.

IV. CIVIL CLAIMS


1. Court Record April 21, 1999 – p. 9, para 6 – 13 motions from investors for
constituting them as civil plaintiffs and private accusers.
- the defendant – p. 9 last para and p. 10, para 1
“the court to consider the legitimate civil claims and join them to the case as moral
injuries of this process. Different individuals have been injured or some company. These
claims are an integral part of the case and their rights. ... the court should accept for joint
consideration in the present proceeding the civil claims filed.”
- the court- p. 10, para 3 motions from depositors
to be constituted as civil plaintiffs and private accusers by virtue of art. 52 and the
following and art. 60 and the following of the CCP should not be honoured since the
main accusation supported by the SCPO is under art. 203, (1) item 1, CC; the depositors
have not suffered injury from the main crime commited by the defendant in his official
capacity under art. 203 but suffered from the facilitating crime under art. 211, CC which
has been incorporated in the main accusation.

2. Court Record December 9, 1999– Michael Kapoustin, p. 152, para 4 – civil


plaintiffs

V. REQUESTS

A. Motions Filed By Mike

1. Court Record April 21, 1999 – p.9, para 7 – Motion dd. April 9, 1999 requesting
to admit evidence and Motion dd. April 13, 1999 – requesting in its essence to
stop the proceeding, written evidence attached not translated
-Prosecutor Stoyanov – p. 9, para 8 - Not to
honour the request – the issues brought up in the motion are upon the essence, they refer
to evidence and accusation and the C. will rule upon them by its Act (meaning the verdict
– note of translator); evidence not concretized, part of it under the case; request to stop
proceeding – without merit.

2. Court Record April 21, 1999 – the court - p. 22, para 2 – Concerning the April
28, 1999 Motion of the defendant (dates I cite correctly; checked several times –
Marianna) – “finds that under item 2 of the request in volume 43, sheet 121 – 125
he cannot be given an original text in English of the documents specified on those
pages since the document is for official use and does not contain information
concrete with the accusation brought up”; item 3 – in volume 14 on p. 50 there is
a certified translation of a written declaration submitted through a protocol for
submitting dd. July 9, 1997 in Sofia to investigator Kirov personally by
Doornbos. police liaison officer of the Canadian embassy in Vienna and in his
letter to investigator Kirov it is stated that they attach a legalized certified copy;

6
item 4 – the defendant examined materials in volume 27 banking documents; item
5 – Mike: “Are there transfers to Green Oasis from IBID? – rejected request,
information in vol. 27; item 6 – to demand from Investigative service documents
– technical reoprts – installation – honoured by court; p. 23 item 7 – asking for
documents from BNB – Sasho Roussev – honoured by court; item 8 –the court
finds it necessary to demand a response from the Ministry of Finance –
concerning lawfulness and other correspondence about DRs; item 9 p. 24 –
honoured – to obtain from inv. service contracts with Georgia, USA, Canada and
Mexico about F-R; item 10 – request withdrawn by att. Lulcheva ; item 11 –
request not grounded since there is no such accusation; item 12 – rejected request
– no relevance to the Act of Indictment; items 13 and 14 connected with Motion
dd. April 13;

3. Court Record April 21, 1999 – April 13, 1999 Motion – p. 24, para 8 – the
court – concerning objection that warrants of arrest when issued by a police
officer or prosecutor have to be heard and the detention measure has to be ruled
upon by a court of law since these are the principles of the German legal system –
the court finds the request without merit since in art. 12 (2) “a”, ECE the request
of the requesting state should be accompanied by an original or a certified copy of
a verdict or warrants of arrest or another document (in this instance a Ruling of
the SCPO) issued in compliance with the laws of the requesting state. By the
moment of preparing of the request by the Main Public Prosecutor of RB for
extradition of Michael Kapoustin and by the present moment the detention
measures are being ruled upon by the preliminary proceedings authorities.... p. 25
para 1 – The German court has allowed extradition and it is within its competence
to assess the circumstances under the extradition therefore the present court is not
legitimized to consider the actions of the foreign court and after Kapoustin has
been extradited it is pointless to discuss whether in connection with the above
stated there is a substantial procedural violation in the meaning of the CCP.

B. FOR ECONOMIC EXPERTISES

1. Court Record April 27, 1999 – p. 64, para 12, 13 Defence counsels – “to assign
a task to the experts to give a conclusion, as far as there is data under the case
about th ereal amounts categorically invested [vneseni] in view of the accusation
construction which supposes real injuries having taken place for the victims as
well, I consider that depending on the data under the case available the amounts
received as dividends should be calculated... and to give a conclusion about the
amounts of dividends paid so that the patrimony can be reduced.; My reasoning is
that in view of the accusations under art. 203 and 211 the patrimony must have
been really infringed upon.

- p. 65 prosecutor – para 1 – concerning dividends


– this cannot be established since according to the evidences under the case since from
the accountancy kept and from the documents issued it has not been reflected what is
dividend, interest, capitalization, i.e. – the task is impossible;

7
- the court – para 7, p. 65 – “Concerning the
request to assign an additional expertise concerning amounts really deposited [vneseni],
the court finds that it should be not honoured since the experts responded that due to the
absence of primary documentation such calculations cannot be made.
- experts - para 8 p. 65 –“ it is not possible for us
to prepare a conclusion due to objective reasons. Materials are voluminous, they are at
the court, we are not allowed to have leave”
- att. Lulcheva - p. 66 para 1 – “We needed the
additional expertise since the conclusion of the experts was not adequately complete and
clear.”
- court – p. 66 para 2 – “The court finds that it
wrongly understood the defence request for allowing an additional expertise since the
deposited conclusion is complete and clear as far as the tasks assigned are concerned. In
its essence this is a request to assign a new expertise there fore it sets aside its ruling to
allow an additional expertise;
- att. Lulcheva – p. 66 para 4 – the task in
connection with the subject to be proved; the dividends received have to be deducted;
they have not been obtained by the company as assets, therefore a clear response has not
been given to the task; para 8 – “I request to allow the task we asked for earlier. The law
does not determine the kinds of expertises depending on their tasks assigned but
depending on their subject.”; p. 67 para 1 “ I sustain the request for a new expertise with
a task as specified earlier”
- the court – p. 67, para 3 – “Does not honor the
request for appointing of a new expertise”

2. Court Record September 14, 1999– p. 145 para last, p. 146 § 1- att. Lulcheva -
a request for an additional economic expertise which will be concretized in
writing in connection with payment of dividends since considerable differences
between the main and the additional expertises have been established.
- Prosecutor Stoyanov – p. 146 para 2 –
objection;
-att. Lulcheva - para 3 asking for
additional expertises to evaluate construction in the warehouses of NCIPD in Souhodol,
to assess the value of the laboratory built; para 4 to prepare an expert conclusion
concerning the value of LCIAD assets at 16, Batenmerg by the initiation of the
preliminary investigation; para 5 – evaluate assets at 3, Krakra and evaluation of the
simulator – to use the documents for purchasing of the latter; para 6 – evaluation of the
installation in Tzarimir since the preliminary investigation bodies have accepted that
Kanameco is a subsidiary to LCIAD.;
- Prosecutor Stoyanov - para 7 –
objection, not connected with the subject of accusation;
- the court – p. 147, para 5 – will rule after
a deliberation; gives the opportunity to the defence to submit their request in writing

8
3. Court Record January 11, 2000 – Att. Lukanov - p. 57, para 7, 8 – to repeat
the expertise (about dividends paid) already accepted and the experts to consider
the documents submitted as opposed to National Accountancy Standards – what
will the total amount of separate investments be after that; para 9 – prosecution to
submit all documents seized – experts said that the second parts to the documents
have not been submitted – after they having been submitted, the experts to apply
NAS and then give their conclusion; p. 58, para 1 – experts to check bank
documents; Michael Kapoustin – para 2 – computer records seized to be
included; funds to and from Bulgaria under the accounts of LCIAD to be
established; Att. Lukanov – para 3 – to exclude all documents, which do not
meet the requirements of NAS and exclude all persons having those documents
not regular; additional task – to check all payment orders existing with IBID;
Michael Kapoustin – objects to accept the expertise since tasks were not fulfilled
completely.
- experts: p. 59, para 9 :”We have not seen accountancy documents, therefore we cannot
say whether they meet international accountancy standards”; para 10 – “We have not
examined documents, which certify that the amounts under RDR and ADR have entered
the corporate account.”

C. FOR DOCUMENTS

1. Court Record April 28, 1999 - att. Lulcheva - p. 84, § 2 – “To demand from
Tax Dpt. “Sredetz” the reference for amounts deposited [vneseni] with the
company and interests calculated as submitted for the purposes of the tax
inspection, which was used to calculate the basis for issuing the Taxation
Statement under VAT.”
- Prosecutor Stoyanov – para 7 – the reference
issued by the company might be with false contents; “there is a figure given by the tax
dpt. on the basis which it works”
- the court - para 9 will rule in closed session

2. Court Record January 10, 1999 - att. Lukanov – p. 18 subsequent – para 10 –


to attach as evidence under the proceeding civ. case 3970/96 of I- “G”
department; civ. case 4647/95 and civ. case 2529/96 of I – “V” department of the
SCC – the defence insists upon attaching these civ. cases since in there are
decisions in force passed.
- Prosecutor Stoyanov – p. 19 subsequent,
para 1 - objects
- att. Lukanov – p. 19 para 3 – both civil
cases cited include amounts included in the subject of accusation.

9
3. Court Record January 11, 2000 – p.50 – last para, p. 51 – para 1 “I insist the
witness (Videnov No. 21) to submit the original documents since on the reverse
side of the original there is text which is not on the photocopy. (para1, o. 51)I
allege that the photocopy submitted is not full and that on the reverse side there
are terms and conditions, which the witness has not submitted. … I challenge the
truthfulness of the documents submitted by him and ask the court to oblige him
submit the originals. (2) Without the original I cannot ask foe an expertise on the
handwriting nor any other expertise, because in the conclusion, which you have
accepted it is established that a stamp of LCIAD, which has not been seized, has
been placed. I enlisted already more than 100 stamps, which do not belong to
LCIAD. I mean a graph logical expertise. Without having seen the original I
cannot ask for another expertise without making sure of the authenticity of this
document.
- Prosecutor Stoyanov – p. 52, para 10 –
“…I consider it is not necessary [to submit the original] since under the case there are
numerous such blank forms.”

- the court – para 11 – does not honour the


request – since there are numerous blank forms under the case of ADR – temp. – the
commercial terms and conditions are without signature … p. 53 para 2: Ruled: It Leaves
without honour the request to challenge a document, which has not be concretized”
- Michael Kapoustin – p. 53, para 3 – “I
request to record by virtue of art. 51 (1), CCP that submitting of original documents was
denied to me, since there is no proof that my signature has been placed upon them and
that I may be convicted on these grounds without the veracity of these documents having
been verified. For this reason I protest.

D. FOR WITNESSES

1. Court Record April 28, 1999 - att. Lulcheva - p. 84, § 2 – To allow, subpoena
and question as witnesses in view of the accusation on p. 12 of the Act of
Indictment concerning the amount of ... BGL spent for different purposes
representatives of organizations sponsored by LCIAd for which there are
documents under the case (volume 43, sheet 185)
- Prosecutor Stoyanov – para 6 – not necessary to
subpoena and question representatives of Atl. Club – there are documents in evidence
- the court –para 9 - will rule in closed session

2. Court Record January 10, 1999 - att. Lukanov – p. 18 subsequent – para 11 –


to allow Ivo Borissov Paroushev (address given) and Milka Bogdanova Popova
(address) – in view of her residence in Canada – a questionnaire for a letter
rogatory to question her through the MofJ by proxy.

3. Court Record January 11, 2000 – Michael Kapoustin. p. 24, para 8 – Stunned
by the court’s decision concerning witnesses in part 2 of the Act of Indictment –
4,731 persons; request – in compliance with art. 6 (3), ECHR, 1955; in addition

10
art. 85 (1), art. 89 (1), art. 82 and art. 116, CCP,which are incumbent upon the
court. “Does your Honour deny me the right to challenge these witnesses who
give evidence against him (me) concerning the crime under art. 203 in conj. art.
211, CC and if it is so I ask for your motives according to law or in the alternative
– meet my request to subpoena these witnesses so that I can challenge their
testimonies which I consider untrue.”
- Prosecutor Stoyanov - p. 25, para 4 – 6:
accusation under art. 203, if it were under
211 it would be obligatory to question all
these people; accusation not based only
upon testimonies of these persons; written
evidence available; numerous persons
questioned under the main accusation who
are depositors as well – so no doubts about
the nature of the corporate activities and of
the financial instruments; request without
merit, should not be honoured.
- Michael Kapoustin – para 7: … then all
4,731 persons should be deleted from record and concentrate upon the accusation under
art. 201, CC instead of questioning witnesses under 211; “The principle of this process
has to be clarified so that I know how to defend myself”.
- Att. Lukanov – para 8: 4,731 witnesses
unlawfully questioned during the preliminary proceedings; the request is by virtue of art.
6 item 3 “d”, ECHR since during the preliminary proceedings the defendant could not ask
questions; there is no obstacle for this to happen during the judicial investigation.
- the court- p. 26, para 6 – will rule upon
request after questioning of the witnesses who have appeared.

VI. WITNESSES
1. Investor Krumov - Court Record April 22, 1999 – p. 31 para 2 – aware that this
is an investment process
2. Investor Stefan Kalchev – serious investment; examined carefully commercial
terms ADR; p. 33, para 3 – “I cannot say Kapoustin gave any guarantees. He gave
promises that everything would work.”
3. Witness Vassil Savov – dealer, administrative director at Rakovski 96 – Court
Record April 23, 1999, p. 39 para “Everybody interested in dividends. When
people came they knew what they invest and what they would get. People knew
their interests very well.”
4. Investor Veliko Velikov – p Court Record April 23, 1999, p. 44 – 45 – no
personal contacts with Michael Kapoustin; “acquainted with the commercial
terms and conditions and all terms under the ADR.
5. Employee Emil Zafirov dealer - Court Record April 23, 1999, ,. 46 – pople
after explanations understood that this is not a deposit but a specific financial
instrument and it is bound with a security.

11
6. Investor Liuben Daskalov - Court Record April 26, 1999 p. 52 – para 4 –
divident is to be paid for activities – LCIAD – activities in health, foodstuffs,
waste oils; interest – when you get from a bank on deposit; we had to receive
dividends
7. Employee Radilova cashier Court Record April 26, 1999 –p. 53, last
paraLCIAD effected commercial activities
8. Witness Liubomir Georgiev Court Record April 26, 1999 – p. 54 –last para –
dealers explained everything is OK, there is no fraud
9. Witness Bogdan Petrunov - Court Record April 28, 1999 – p. 70 – 73 –
contracts and activities with LCIAD; p. 71 para 3 - clinical tests Factor – R in the
USA, successful; representation of F – R in may 1995 in Washington (interesting
– when talking about F-R he says that LCIAD could not add more than 20% to
the price of Respivax; there is no product F-R substance B – it does not exist); p.
73 para 4 “I advised the investigation that the term of F-R expires since Mr.
Stefcho Georgiev ordered the preparation to stay with us to be kept. I sent a letter
t the investigation so that they advise us what to do with the preparation. I
received no response to this letter from 1996. There was a possibility to try and
sell the preparation somewhere abroad to find realization for it. It could be given
to the same patients who wanted to continue their treatment but it was stopped.”
10. Employee Alexieva - Court Record April 28, 1999 – p. 74, para 1 – “After
coming into force of the Law on Financial, Banking and Crediting Activities
[ZFBID], which forbade payment of monthly dividend before the end of the fiscal
year, transformation of RDR and ADR into shares began – documents were being
filled, which would later be used for issuing of shares and this continued maybe
until the end of August and the beginning of September, when I think they came
from the prosecution and seized the documents. para 2 “I personally have not seen
anybody else to take out documentation except for officials of the investigation.”
(commenting upper and lower part of ADR para 3 and para 6; para 7 –
explaining applications for surrender of DR... and Receipts for submitted DR..., p.
75 continues about RSDR); p. 75 para 5 and 6 – “These files were kept in the
offices at Rakovski for each of the investors [vlojiteli] separately. I worked until
November 1995. While I was working with the files they were in the offices until
maybe the beginning of September when people from the prosecution came and
seized a part of or the whole documentation – I cannot recall. I think the
prosecution has to have seized these files. The files were not locked, they were
just arranged....”; p. 76 para 8 “In the offices at Rakovski there were maybe about
10 computers. When I left the office there were no computers. I don’t know where
they are. Just one Monday when we went to work there were no computers. May
be a part of them were missing in September.”
11. Witness Georgi Petkov – Tax department “Sredetz”, expert on taxes - Court
Record April 28, 1999 – p. 80 para 1 – “We definitely refused to levy profit tax
upon amounts obtained from depositors [vlojiteli]. These are obligation relations
and should not be taxed. These are monies of the depositors and are not secure
proceeds for the company, monies which are not proceeds for the company cannot
be profit taxed.”; VAT to be levied on all transactions; accounts and assets seized.

12
23. Witness Shekerdjiiska – employee - Court Record April 29, 1999 – p. end 85,
86 para 1 – pharmaceuticals; patients USA – 150-200
12. Witness Valentin pAroushev - Court Record September 7, 1999 – activities of
LCIAD - p. 94 para – 10 – 24,000 USD for the NCIPD laboratory spent; Krakra;
p. 95, para 8 Office at Krakra 3 closed and sealed on Jan. 15, 1996, money taken
by R. Lendy; activities at Krakra; special prices for investors; p. 95 § 11 -
simulator – cost about 250,000 USD – not sure but very expensive; p. 96, § 6 –
Suhodol warehouse of NCIPD – repair paid by LCIAD; chickens; p. 97, § 5 – “...
there was a letter which offered us the opportunity to purchase LCIAD shares for
a certain amount. After that from this value of the shares we were supposed to
receive dividends. I in fact have not invested [vnasial] money. I had a proposal by
the executive director to obtain for free shares for this amount as determined. He
used to determine to whom and what amount to offer.; p. 97 §9 – recalls donation
for the church in Bankia; a concert against AIDS and drugs sponsored by LCIAD
and a singer sponsored – does not recall his name, there was some contract”;
50,000 USD to the Atl. Club.
13. Witness Paskaleva - Court Record September 7, 1999 - p. 101, last para and p.
101, § 1 – “A lot of property was taken out of all the offices. A lot was depleted –
computers, fax machines, chairs, tables, fridges – there must be some lists I
cannot recall exactly what was taken away. There was a list prepared about the
assets available. This happened after Mr. Kapoustin left. I heard that in the
Plovdiv region where the installation was it was also robbed. I heard that R.
Lendy took and misappropriated assets and had not transferred money to the
corporate account. I myself have seen R. Lendy to take out of the office a
computer and a fax machine. I heard that in the offices at Krakra he organized
sale of refrigerators (I mean R. Lendy) This was before the investigation started.
In the office at Batenberg there were some computers left and other equipment but
some issuer came there and said he would stay there. I advised investigation but
I’m not aware whether any steps have been taken. I know this issuer still works in
this office. It seemed everybody had taken the decision to steal from these
offices.”; Lendy took docs out of the offices saying that he was giving it to
Kapoustin; does not know what has come back from Greece.

14. Donkov – broker - Court Record September 8, 1999 - Court Record


September 8, 1999 – p. 105, § 16 – his main activities to sell shares; the financial
instruments have certain specific terms and conditions, not known in RB; main
objective of brokers was to explain to interested persons the way of making the
investment and the specifics of the financial instruments concerning buying them;
main investors with the company and holders of share... [paket ot akztii] were
foreign persons on part of LC – USA. “In principle the corporate policy is
determined by the BD and is coordinated in a shareholders meeting with the
investors. The policy of our company is represented by Mr. Kapoustin and for
certain issues our opinion was sought in view of the conditions in RB – how to
represent the investment. Michael Kapoustin was an executive director and he
directs the corporate policy.”; p. 106 - originals of financial instruments printed
abroad, temporary certificates prepared in the company; p. 106, § 3 Explanations

13
given to brokers at Rakovski, Kapoustin personally and other experts used to
explain the way, terms & conditions and the opportunities to invest with the
company; brokers asked questions – like: a company has no right to declare in
advance a guaranteed dividend before the end of the fiscal year, dividend of 227%
not guaranteed; explanations given to brokers – on the basis of the certain
investments made the company has made the respective projects [prognozi],
determining some rates of annual profit. On the basis of these projects [prognozi]
the possibilities to ay dividends under the financial instruments was determined –
this brokers after that explained to clients.; § 5 all necessary explanations given
mainly by Kapoustin – the most competent person; “no broker would work
without guarantees and protection by the company before the investors and
without being sure about information about profit margins of investment and
possibilities for profits”; the broker gives information from the company to the
investor and vice versa – from investors to the company; § 7 profits directions – 1.
medicines – F-R and Respivax; p. 107 2. contract for distribution of the products
of “Seagrams” (in he record written “Sigmas”); 3. waste oils processing project;
4. chickens, calves – possibly; possibility to organize a plant for production of
automobiles – engines from the USA; 5. BANQ1 – possibilities for the Bulgarian
investor to play on the international stock exchange market; § 7 there was an
insurance in the USA for certain deposits in case of eventual risk; § 10 – “when
investors asked we explained all this to them and the way investment was made”;
seminars held on Mondays at the NCIPD; schemes and brochures with
explanations; texts explaining the essence of RDR and ADR – they were printed
on their reverse side as well. Each investor could obtain at any time these
brochures. “The general insurance bill I have seen but I have not examined it
closely, I don’t think it was represented as a whole to the investors, there was a
partial translation, we received explanations.”; § last – “We learned from Mr.
Kapoustin that the company representing LC – USA and the Bulgarian branches
of LC when an amount given by the Bulgarian investor ... the American company
deposits the equivalent in USD under a personal deposit – there were 3-4 banks
enlisted, I think one of them does not work, after that the National Insurance
Corporation of the USA or Canada makes an insurance upon the deposit made and
it (the deposit) cannot be withdrawn within the insurance term and thus the
investment [vlojenieto] of the Bulgarian investor was guaranteed since opposed to
his investment [vlojenie] there is a guarantee in a bank in the USA”.; p.108 §2 –
brokers referred to and pondered upon this insurance bill – it contained more than
500 pages and it was not convenient to print out so many copies of it; he himself
9DONKOV0 has given explanations upon it to investors; §4 -The sale of RDR
and ADR – it was explained to brokers that this represents an option to buy and
sell shares of the company. “The option and the warrant and the rights under them
are securities having been recognized for 150 – 200 years in the stock exchange
trade as securities giving rights upon certain package of shares – these can be
certain commodities, by a company.”; §5 – “I.E. these are secondary securities
and their existence is not determined on the basis of the existence of a certain kind
of shares – ordinary, name or prerefernce; so for brokers as it had been explained
to them there were possibilities to buy and sell such securities, they trusted the

14
company since they were not experts in this field; no broker would work if he has
no basis upon which he can work; §7 – explaining difference between sales of
financial instruments and shares – situation in Bulgaria which made it more
difficult to work – “there was no law which forbade payment of monthly
dividends”; §8 – “With the company, in principle in stock exchange trade, in
newspaper “Money” dd. May 25, 1994 there was an explanation about the
type of the instruments and there was a diagram of a Swiss financial
institution, from which we had taken “Pyramid of Security” and “Pyramid
of Profit”, i.e. big profit is connected with considerable risk and with AD
(joint stock companies) there is always a risk with the investments
[vlojeniata], the risk always starting at 50:50 and the projects of a certain
company in different fields and the nature of these fields lead to eventual
increase or decrease of the risk, this I always used to explain to the
investors.”; p. 109 §1 - “It was explained to us that through this document
– secondary security, the investors [vlojitelite] become owners of a certain
package of shares of the company which contains a number of shares
according to the value of the security and since it is much easier to operate
with this secondary security in view of transfer of ownership and the
opportunity to buy it back and due to this that in fact investors [vlojitelite]
throughout the world hold temporary certificates since the shares of each
company are kept in safes, safety vaults [tresori], etc. and are not directly
given to investors, therefore they obtain a temporary certificate, which for
us – the brokers was an acceptable explanation....”; §3 – (after att. Lulcheva
gave him the Prospectus – “I know this Prospectus but some pages are missing.
Everything that was submitted to us by the company we used to explain to the
clients. ...§4 “It was our obligation to submit there terms and conditions to the
investors [vlojitelite] when they asked for more information. It was a necessary
obligation for us the investors [vlojitelite] to get acquainted with these terms and
conditions.

15. Witness M. Glouharova – employee - Court Record September 8, 1999 – p.


110 §6 financial instruments ADR – Gold certificate printed in the printing house
of the movie – centre; about the other instruments she does not know; she
prepared the blank, text given to her; never deleted information of the company –
only old files not to jam the computer

16. Witness Ivanov (Atlantic Club) - Court Record September 9 1999 – p. 115;§3
– In December 1994 to March 1995 Third National Antarctic Expedition –
LCIAD financed 50,000 USD, all costs – about 80,000 USD; “”I participated in
the meeting together with the chief of the expedition. We met Kapoustin and on
November 18, 1994 the contract was executed – the signatures under the contract
are of the president of BAC and of Mr. Kapoustin”.; §8 “LCIAD had certain
rights under the contract for sponsoring. The company had special interest to the
microbiological project and obtained the right to use products which might be
produced as a result of these researches – natural antibiotics...As far as I know the

15
results of these researches are interesting but practically nothing was done. .. I
think the meetings concerning signing the contract were more than one. Since the
contract was prepared by a Canadian law firm, it was very detailed and we had to
examine it. Our obligations were to use the money only for organizing of the
expedition otherwise LCIAD could take back its money. I am not aware whether
BAC has received earlier money from LCIAD as sponsorship.”; first contact; not
aware of any other contacts of Mr. Passy with LCIAD; conditions and terms under
the contract were observed.

17. Witness Karagiozov – employee - Court Record September 10, 1999 – p. 121,
para 8 – “Main motive for stopping of payments is the Law on Securities and
Stock Exchanges and Banks [ZCKFB], which forbade payment of dividends in
advance before the end of the accountancy year. The law says this and it has to be
observed.”

18. Witness Radovanov – commercial coordinator LCIAD - Court Record


September 10, 1999 – p. 121, § last – Activities were of huge scale. Production
of chickens, import of alcohol, two projects for cars, refinery in Plovdiv;
sometimes dealt with customs clearance of goods; p. 122 – chickens – profit
margin about 2 to 4% (project – 10%); chickens sold at their cost price to
investors, all other goods too – p. 123.

19. Investor Kostova - Court Record September 14, 1999– p. 134 § 11 – got
acquainted with a brochure of BANQ1; asked in BNB – they told her the
company was legitimate and has good perspectives; her acquaintance received a
letter from Plamen Oresharski, M of Finance, that the activities of LCIAD were
legitimate.

20. Investor D. Hristov – Court Record January 11, 2000 – p. 40, §3 – seminar –
Mr. Kapoustin explained about the installation for waste oils, full economic data;
para 6 “ADR were bought depending on our desire.”; para 7: “I had the right to
participate in taking decisions concerning management of the company on the
basis of the RDR and ADR I owned. I have not participated in this but I had the
right to and Mr. Kapoustin explained to us in the big hall that we are investors and
depending on our desire after the company is re-registered we can turn them into
shares. This was in June 1995.”; p. 41, para 2: “I did not intend after I
surrendered the ADR to be transferred to shares to want my money back, invested
[vlojeni] in ADR. I did not have such an intention before that either. … There
were many other investors [vlojiteli] – many of them who surrendered their ADR
– we had to wait in queues.”; para 3:”I have not heard somebody else to want
their money. I haven’t heard from my colleagues to want their money back. I
haven’t heard other [vlojiteli] to want their money from ADR instead of obtaining
shares. My colleagues had only yellow ADR.”; para 4:”For me definitely the
corporate projects had ideal perspectives”; para 5 “I never felt defrauded, neither
did my colleagues with whom I have shared everything at no times from the
purchase of the financial instruments until the end and presently.”; para 6:

16
“LCIAD has not failed, neither it is wound up or bankrupt. It is a joint stock
company which will have future, trusting the talent of Mr. Kapoustin.”; p. 42
para 1 “LCIAD stopped paying because and Ordinance about securities was
promulgated – according to which dividends have to be paid after ending the
fiscal year and determining of profits.”; para 7: “We investors [vlojiteli] have
made attempts to help the company continue to operate…My colleagues – close
friends and me decided to contact the supervising prosecutor Stoyanov in June –
July 1996 (at that time Kapoustin was extradited) with the request to get in touch
with Kapoustin and to figure it out how to proceed to get out of this mess…Mr.
Stoyanov accepted us /with the only request to meet Mr. Kapoustin/ and then he
told us that he would let no one to this “Ukrainian gipsy”. According to him /Mr.
Stoyanov/ he is an international swindler, criminal, leader of a sect and we want
him here for considerable torts. We were 4 or 5 persons and Mr. Stoyanov was
alone.” (testimony p. 40 through 43 – activities of the company).

21. Investor Videnov - Court Record January 11, 2000 – (p.45 – 52)- p. 50, para 3,
4, 5 – Witness reads ADR-temporary, items 3 and 4; “What I read now I have read
when they gave me the receipt. Before depositing [vnesa] my money I read other
materials in which the same things are written like these in item 3 and 4…”; “I
have not asked the dealers what it is about. Everything I read before depositing
[vnesa] my money I understood. Everything under item 4, what I understood now
is that I do not wish to become a shareholder of the company – I knew these
conditions, but not completely. I was interested only in the interest rates. Here in
item 4 it clearly reads that if I want I can transfer my money into shares but I do
not want to.”; para 5: “No one threatened me. I went to the office willingly. I
deposited my money for interest.”; para 50 “I have never spoken with Mr.
Kapoustin” p. 52, para 1 Question Att. Lukanov: “Would you tell us by what
actions personally and concretely conserning you personally you were deluded by
Mr. Kapoustin?” Response para 3 “I nowhere spoke about delusion. I say that we
were defrauded by Mr. Kapoustin and his company. We cannot receive our money
for 5 years…”

VII. EXPERTS

17
1. Court Record April 27, 1999 – I expertise expert Georgieva - p. 62 for 1474
persons amounts calculated only on the basis of witness’ testimonies; p. 63 – para
3- they have not deducted dividends paid; para 6 – no data that the amounts have
been really paid but they have been entered in the ADR; for no amount we know
what has been really deposited [vneseno]. “Each depositor has received a receipt
upon which an amount in foreign currency or BGL is entered. What from this
amount has been deposited [vneseno] or capitalized it cannot be established”; para
8 – we did not have the task to calculate the amounts really deposited by the
depositors.; para 9, 10 and p. 64 para 1 – persons without documents

2. Court Record April 27, 1999 – p. 64 para 8 expert Milanova – “We have not
seen the originals of the cash receipts to the submitted to the investigative case
certified photocopies; para 9 ”We cannot say whether the amount has been
received back by the depositor [vlojitel] when a cash receipt has been submitted
without any other documents since we have no other data but we have compared
them to the witness’ testimonies.

3. Court Record April 27, 1999 – p. 67 para 5 through 7 – expert Vikova – “I did
not have the task what the grounds for transferring the amounts are therefore I
have not given such answers... I cannot say where the company beneficiary is
located...”

4. Court Record January 11, 2000 – Michael Kapoustin - p. 54, para 5 “What
does your experience or education allow you to do what a CPA cannot do and
what can they do what you cannot do?”; (prosecutor objects) para 7 “I challenge
to a certain extent the quality of the expert”
- the court – para 8 - 10 – does not allow the
question

5. Court Record January 11, 2000 – expert Koicheva – p. 56, para 5 “We do not
have available unequivocal evidence and data for dividends paid more than the
ones included in the conclusion.; para 9 “The expertise worked upon files with
seized documents, which are originals and upon documents, certified photocopies.
Conclusions upon banking documents and figures have not been used and
included in the conclusion.; para 11 – ”S”-files – data incomplete concerning the
amount of the dividend received – discrepancies between the document and
witnesses’ statement … we have not taken into account the National Accountancy
Standard”; p. 57 para 1 “we cannot judge how many documents do not meet [the
requirements of the Accountancy Act and National Accountancy Standards];
-Michael Kapoustin – Question – p. 57 para 3 – “Can you objectively state that
according to the evidence submitted the amounts have been received according to the
accountancy rules?” (prosecutor – objects); para 5 - … the experts have to confirm
that the prosecutor submits evidence which has the quality of evidence as art. 72,
CCP provides for”... they have to represent before the court what they believe is true
and not to reorganize the evidence submitted by the prosecutor and not verified by
any authority.

18
- the court – para 6 – does not
allow question
-

VIII. VIOLATIONS BY COURT:

A. RIGHT FOR DEFENCE

1. Court Record December 9, 1999– p. 151, para 2 – appoints an official


defence counsel Stilian Chernev, Sofia Bar
- Michael Kapoustin - p. 155, §1 – rejects
official defence counsel

B. NOT TAKING MEASURES AGAINST UNLAWFUL ACTS BY OFFICIALS

1. Court Record December 9, 1999– Michael Kapoustin, p. 151, para 7


protest slander, complaint filed against Stefcho Georgiev
- the court - Court Record December 14,
1999 - - p. 172, para 6 – “there is no data under the case according the provisions of 1rt.
49, CCP that any request has been made by the defendant or his defence counsels to the
prosecutor who exercised guidance and oversight upon the preliminary investigative
body. It is beyond the competence of the Court to rule upon this request according to art,
49 (1) in conj. art. 44 (1), CCP”

IX. CHALLENGES
1. Court Record January 10, 1999 - att. Lukanov – p. 20 subsequent – para 1
– by virtue of art. 272 (1) conj. art. 25, items 9 and 1 challenge of the judicial
panel – the first decision to make translations under the case was taken by
another panel –Schakle and Dimitrova did not participate – the principle of
permanency of the panel has been violated. Judge Mitkova – expressed bias
on p. 10 of the court record – before the end of the judicial investigation she
ruled concerning the qualification in the motives to certain circumstances; this
bias is observable from the motives for not admitting the victims of the crime
– thus the right of the defendant for fair and impartial trial – violated; para 2
– of prosecutor – Prosecution filed the Act of Indictment upon the order of
the city prosecutor although he did not have the right to set aside the order of
MPPO.
- Michael Kapoustin - para 3 – “In
compliance with my rights under art. 51 item 1, CCP I have advised the court on August
30 that the translations submitted to me are not correct and thus I was not aware of what
was going on in the court-room. Judge Mitkova did nothing concerning this problem. On
April 16 and 21 I was not advised about my rights – I was not told that I have the right to
challenge this staff of the court or the prosecutor... I was denied this right...Judge Mitkova

19
has not ruled concerning the November 30, 1999 Decision so that I can appeal it. I can
say I do not understand the motives or the bias against me and why I have no rights
before this court since you have not yet given me a response why Stoyanov, Geotgiev or
Kossev have not violated my rights under art. 268, art. 90 (1) & (3) in conj. art. 25 (9)
Court Record January 11, 1999 - att. Lukanov – p. 21 subs., para 4 – specifies
about the principle of permanency of the panel – on March 10, 1999 – members Natalia
Radeva and Todor Kassabov – the court ruled concerning transcript in the language the
defendant understands of the Act of Indictment; he (defendant) points out Ref. No.
3433/Dec. 10, 1998; No. 3432 same date; 3582/Dec. 28, 1998; 3581/; Dec. 28, 1998 as
well as 21/Jan. 4, 1999; 2818/99 and 198/Sept. 18, 1990(should be 1999) – from the
moment of appeal he continues to seek his rights under art. 13, ECHR – appeals sent to
Main public prosecutor of RB, these appeals have entered the prosecution. The fact that
they are not under this case – not defendant’s fault.
- the court – p. 21, para 6 and following,
22 para 1 through 7 - The conditions under art. 25, item 9, CCP not present ... Does not
honour the challenge of the panel and prosecutor
- Michael Kapoustin – I’d like to offer
under art. 51 (1) my right under art. 13, ECHR to postpone the session for one day so that
I can contact Strasbourg in connection with what I find as violation against me It is
obvious this process will not be fair.
- att. Lukanov – p. 23, para 1 – 2 – request
of defendant lawful; para 5 – in case the court decides to continue with the session,
according to art. 10 (2), Advocacy Law you should send transcripts of the court records
from hearings with my participation as a defence counsel to the Sofia Bar Council to start
a file concerning the actions in the court-room and from my part I point out persons to
carry out the inspection – associate professor Katia Trendafilova and ass. prof. Margarita
Chinova; It is required that ex-judicial authorities inspect the way of handling this
process.
- Prosecutor Stoyanov – para 7 – I consider
this is an attempt to exert pressure upon the court
- the court – request to postpone – rejected
– art. 26, ECHR not all domestic possibilities for defence have been exhausted; Rulings
of the court in connection with the requests to end the proceeding, Rulings under art. 272,
CCP are subject to verification together with the verdict.

X. BIAS

1. Court record April 21, 1999 - p. 10, para 3 – “... the main accusation
supported by SCPO is under art. 203 (1) item 1, CC and except for his
capacity of an official the defendant has committed another crime as well
under art. 211 which facilitated the perpetration and is subject to lighter
punishment.”

20

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi