A candidate for the position of local councilor from Colonița offered 200-300 lei for votes in favor of the party 'Democracy at Home'

Ghimpu Dumitru, a candidate for the position of local councilor in the Colonița village council on behalf of the Political Party “Democracy at Home,” has been convicted of electoral corruption, as provided by art. 181¹ para. (1¹) of the Criminal Code.

On 29.10.2023, during the electoral campaign for the general local elections, he offered Pelivan Iurie the amount of 200 lei to persuade him to vote in favor of the “Democracy at Home” Party.
Additionally, on 05.11.2023, on election day, Ghimpu Dumitru allegedly offered the voters Ivancișin Mihail and Ivancișin Svetlana 300 lei each for the same electoral purpose.

Other asset measures: None

First instance: Conviction
Appeal: Not applicable
Review: Not applicable

The case was tried in the court of first instance in general procedure. The defendant did not admit his guilt. In order to reach the conviction decision, the court of first instance examined several pieces of evidence (video recordings, documents, etc.), including hearing 10 witnesses. The basis for the conviction was the statements of the witnesses heard in court, the statements made during the criminal investigation by some witnesses who later changed their position, as well as the video recordings examined in the case.
In particular, the video recording regarding the Pelivan/Iurie episode was treated by the court as relevant evidence, as it captured his statement about receiving the amount of 200 lei from Ghimp Dumitru in an electoral context, not just a simple subsequent account without objective support.
For the Ivancișin episode, the court considered both the initial statements from the criminal investigation and the recordings/accounts of the witnesses Onofrei regarding the transportation of voters and the subsequent discussion about the amount of 300 lei.
Additionally, the court examined confrontation minutes and electoral documents that confirmed Ghimp Dumitru's status as a candidate/electoral competitor and the context of the local elections of 2023. The case is relevant for judicial practice as it addresses facts of electoral corruption that took place in 2023 during the local elections.