Zbigniew Ziobro has requested that all investigations concerning Zondacrypto after Donald Tusk read fragments of evidence incriminating the erstwhile minister in the Sejm on September 4. Ziobro rejects the Prime Minister's suggestions and accuses him of a political operation against the right. The dispute concerns serious charges, but the evidence itself is not a conviction or evidence of guilt.
The Prime Minister read any of the testimony
Donald Tusk appeared on September 4 in the Sejm before voting on a presidential veto for the crypto-activist marketplace bill. From the talker he cited a passage of the interrogation protocol in the Zondacrypto investigation. According to the read account, the individual who mediated between Przemysław Kralem and Zbigniew Ziobra was to talk about future intervention in the proceedings and about money transferred through the foundation connected with the Sovereign Poland.
These are the claims recorded in the evidence and publically presented by the Prime Minister. They're not a final court order. The specified fact that the head of the government read them from the Sejm talker does not exempt the media from the work to apply the presumption of innocence to those mentioned in that account.
In the authoritative position of the Chancellery of the Prime Minister from April the government merged the stock exchange with Russian capital and informed about the prosecution's proceedings. This was the government's position in a heated political dispute. Both the finances of the company and foundations and the activities of the state authorities in erstwhile and current years require clarification.
Ziobro demands full disclosure
Zbigniew Ziobro replied that Donald Tusk crossed the border and uses accusations to destruct the right-wing opposition. The erstwhile Minister of Justice called for the disclosure of all inquiries into Zondacrypto. In the conversation quoted by Polish Radio 24, he claimed that the full image of the act differs from the 1 presented by the Prime Minister. He warned that he had not yet listened to Tusk’s full speech.
A request for full information is justified from a public interest point of view, unless disclosure threatens the ongoing proceedings or the rights of private persons. A citizen should not receive selected sentences from the act only erstwhile they service the parliamentary fight. If the state has material of possible corruption, protection of suspects or Russian influence, the case should be clarified by the prosecution and an independent court.
Ziobro has previously been subject to acute action by state authorities including forced to bring Pegasus to the committee of inquiry. This context increases political temperature, but does not settle a fresh case. all thread must be judged on the basis of evidence, not organization sympathy.
Money for the Foundation and Kaczyński's reply
According to the account read by Tusk, the foundation was to receive PLN 2 million, of which PLN 500 1000 was to be transferred. The Prime Minister besides claimed that the money was intended to service the private intent of Ziebra. The erstwhile minister denies specified an image of the case.
Jarosław Kaczyński admitted publically that accepting money by the foundation's environment was a mistake. At the same time, he claimed that the measures were taken without being aware that the donor was related to criminal activities. This is an crucial political statement, but, like the words of Tusk and Ziebra, it requires confrontation with banking documents, correspondence and full procedural material.
The questions are specific. Who made the decision to accept the deposit? What was the money spent on? Did anyone promise to influence the prosecution or pardon? The answer cannot depend on which organization is actually controlling the parliament platform.
The law can't be a spectacle.
Lawyers who have been asked to disclose their evidence draw attention to Article 12 of the Public Prosecutor's Act, which allows public authorities to supply information on proceedings where an crucial public interest so requires. Legal analysis of publication of fragments of files points out, however, that the assessment of the Prime Minister's speech is not conclusive. At this stage, we are talking about evidence the relevance of which to the investigation will be assessed by the prosecution.
Tusk has a work to defend Poles from abuses in the cryptocurrency marketplace and possible influences of abroad services. However, there is no mandate to replace the court. Ziobro has the right to defend and request full context, but has to answer questions about foundation and money flow in a factual way.
State credibility is at stake. If the accusations are true, the guilty should respond regardless of name and organization colors. If the materials were selected for a political spectacle, work falls on those who utilized the prosecutor's office as a set design. Poland needs transparency controlled by law, full evidence and judgement given in court.
Source: Polsat News, Polish Radio 24, Radio ZET, KPRM
Source: Polsat News
