Romanian prosecutors charge Iași mayor over alleged fictitious fuel oil purchase

Iași mayor Mihai Chirica has been formally charged with abuse of office in a case concerning missing fuel oil from the city’s heating company storage facilities, the National Anticorruption Directorate (DNA) announced. Nine other officials from Iași City Hall are also under investigation for alleged complicity in abuse of office and repeated intellectual forgery.

According to prosecutors, Chirica approved a payment of RON 2.04 million (approximately EUR 380,000) from the local budget on May 27, 2022, while acting as mayor and the municipality’s chief authorising officer.

The money was transferred to the National Administration of State Reserves and Special Issues for what the DNA described as “an allegedly fictitious purchase” of 542 tonnes of fuel oil. The quantity had previously been identified as missing, without legal approval, from state reserves stored at Termo Service, a company controlled by the Iași Local Council.

The prosecutors allege that City Hall employees facilitated the payment by preparing documents claiming the fuel oil existed and had been received, although it had not actually been delivered.

Officials are also suspected of drawing up and signing reception reports and discrepancy records that falsely certified the delivery of fuel oil.

“The conduct described allegedly caused damage of RON 2,036,882 to the local budget of Iași municipality,” the DNA said.

According to prosecutors, the payment also generated an undue benefit for the state reserves administration, which received the money and was able to remove the missing fuel from its accounting records. Termo Service allegedly benefited by having the shortage in its inventory covered on paper.

The DNA imposed precautionary seizures on properties belonging to Mihai Chirica and other defendants as part of efforts to recover the alleged damage.

The prosecutors stressed that formally charging the suspects is a procedural stage allowing evidence to be gathered and “cannot, under any circumstances, override the presumption of innocence.”