EU council sanctions individuals, entities responsible for destabilising Moldova
A statement by the Council said those targeted were close associates of Ilan Shor, a fugitive business magnate sentenced in absentia to 15 years in prison in connection with the 2014 disappearance of $1 billion from the Moldovan banking system.
Shor lives in Russia, where he oversees the activities of the pro-Russian "Victory" bloc, accused by Moldovan authorities of illegally financing electoral activities in Moldova, which lies between Ukraine and Romania.
The bloc was barred by the courts from participating in last year's Moldovan presidential election and referendum on Moldova's drive to join the European Union.
Its leaders are barred from entering the EU and are subject to an asset freeze under the directive.
The EU statement said some of the people listed "have been actively involved in vote buying schemes, in the context of the presidential elections and of the constitutional referendum on EU accession of 2024, and bribery to corrupt several politicians".
Victoria Furtuna, leader of the Moldova Mare party and subject to the order, vowed to mount a legal challenge, saying groups in Brussels were "shamelessly and openly ...choosing on their own who is going to run our sovereign state".
Two others on the list are pro-Russian lawmakers who have disappeared after being convicted on corruption charges.
Pro-European President Maia Sandu, who has accused the Kremlin of trying to subvert her country, won re-election last year by a slim margin and a referendum endorsing her EU membership campaign also passed only narrowly.
Moldovan police last year accused Shor of funnelling large sums illegally to voters ahead of the polls and Sandu said the vote-buying scheme had influenced the outcome of the votes.
A poll published on Tuesday credited Sandu's Party of Action and Solidarity with 27.4% of voting intentions ahead of a September parliamentary election, compared to 10.4% for the pro-Russian opposition Socialists and 6.2% for the Victory bloc.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Reuters
an hour ago
- Reuters
India to maintain Russian oil imports despite Trump threats, government sources say
NEW DELHI, Aug 2 (Reuters) - India will keep purchasing oil from Russia despite U.S. President Donald Trump's threats of penalties, two Indian government sources told Reuters on Saturday, not wishing to be identified due to the sensitivity of the matter. On top of a new 25% tariff on India's exports to the U.S., Trump indicated in a Truth Social post last month that India would face additional penalties for purchases of Russian arms and oil. On Friday, Trump told reporters he had heard that India would no longer be buying oil from Russia. But the sources said there would be no immediate changes. "These are long-term oil contracts," one of the sources said. "It is not so simple to just stop buying overnight." Justifying India's oil purchases from Russia, a second source said India's imports of Russian grades had helped avoid a global surge in oil prices, which have remained subdued despite Western curbs on the Russian oil sector. Unlike Iranian and Venezuelan oil, Russian crude is not subject to direct sanctions, and India is buying it below the current price cap fixed by the European Union, the source said. The New York Times also quoted two unnamed senior Indian officials on Saturday as saying there had been no change in Indian government policy. Indian government authorities did not respond to Reuters' request for official comment on its oil purchasing intentions. However, during a regular press briefing on Friday, foreign ministry spokesperson Randhir Jaiswal said India has a "steady and time-tested partnership" with Russia. "On our energy sourcing requirements ... we look at what is there available in the markets, what is there on offer, and also what is the prevailing global situation or circumstances," he said. The White House did not immediately respond to requests for comment. Trump, who has made ending Russia's war in Ukraine a priority of his administration since returning to office this year, has expressed growing impatience with Russian President Vladimir Putin in recent weeks. He has threatened 100% tariffs on U.S. imports from countries that buy Russian oil unless Moscow reaches a major peace deal with Ukraine. Russia is the leading supplier to India, the world's third-largest oil importer and consumer, accounting for about 35% of its overall supplies. India imported about 1.75 million barrels per day of Russian oil from January to June this year, up 1% from a year ago, according to data provided to Reuters by sources. But while the Indian government may not be deterred by Trump's threats, sources told Reuters this week that Indian state refiners stopped buying Russian oil after July discounts narrowed to their lowest since 2022 - when sanctions were first imposed on Moscow - due to lower Russian exports and steady demand. Indian Oil Corp ( opens new tab, Hindustan Petroleum Corp ( opens new tab, Bharat Petroleum Corp ( opens new tab and Mangalore Refinery Petrochemical Ltd ( opens new tab have not sought Russian crude in the past week or so, four sources told Reuters. Nayara Energy - a refinery majority-owned by Russian entities, including oil major Rosneft ( opens new tab, and major buyer of Russian oil - was recently sanctioned by the EU. Nayara's chief executive resigned following the sanctions, and three vessels laden with oil products from Nayara Energy have yet to discharge their cargoes, hindered by the new EU sanctions, Reuters reported last week.
Reuters
an hour ago
- Reuters
Ukraine says it uncovers major drone procurement corruption scheme
KYIV, Aug 2 (Reuters) - Ukraine's anti-corruption bodies said on Saturday they had uncovered a major graft scheme that procured military drones and signal jamming systems at inflated prices, two days after the agencies' independence was restored following major protests. The independence of Ukraine's anti-graft investigators and prosecutors, NABU and SAPO, was reinstated by parliament on Thursday after a move to take it away resulted in the country's biggest demonstrations since Russia's invasion in 2022. In a statement published by both agencies on social media, NABU and SAPO said they had caught a sitting lawmaker, two local officials and an unspecified number of national guard personnel taking bribes. None of them were identified in the statement. "The essence of the scheme was to conclude state contracts with supplier companies at deliberately inflated prices," it said, adding that the offenders had received kickbacks of up to 30% of a contract's cost. Four people had been arrested. "There can only be zero tolerance for corruption, clear teamwork to expose corruption and, as a result, a just sentence," President Volodymyr Zelenskiy wrote on Telegram. Zelenskiy, who has far-reaching wartime presidential powers and still enjoys broad approval among Ukrainians, was forced into a rare political about-face when his attempt to bring NABU and SAPO under the control of his prosecutor-general sparked the first nationwide protests of the war. Zelenskiy subsequently said that he had heard the people's anger, and submitted a bill restoring the agencies' former independence, which was voted through by parliament on Thursday. Ukraine's European allies praised the move, having voiced concerns about the original stripping of the agencies' status. Top European officials had told Zelenskiy that Ukraine was jeopardising its bid for European Union membership by curbing the powers of its anti-graft authorities. "It is important that anti-corruption institutions operate independently, and the law adopted on Thursday guarantees them every opportunity for a real fight against corruption," Zelenskiy wrote on Saturday after meeting the heads of the agencies, who briefed him on the latest investigation.
Telegraph
4 hours ago
- Telegraph
Where is the progressive Left's outrage over foreign sex offenders?
In doing so, the Reform member lit a rocket in the room. The broadcaster and even the less progressive co-host visibly flinched before letting rip on him. He was using inflammatory language and such language 'has consequences'. This was very ominous. He was, it was seemingly implied, getting awfully close to being racist. He sounded, they agreed, altogether like a Very Bad Man! I liked this chap though I also saw their point. One has to be careful not to dehumanise whole demographics, because one might lose one's own humanity in the process. And there are complexities. The highest number of foreign sex offenders are from India, followed by Romanians, Poles, Pakistanis, and Afghans. The highest number of rape convictions among foreign perpetrators are Pakistanis, Nigerians and Romanians, followed by Sudanese, Afghans and Indians. Romanians and Poles are not coming in on small boats, and the Nigerians, Sudanese and Pakistanis aren't in the top five nationalities coming over that way either: the top five nationalities arriving by small boat in 2024 were Afghan, Syrian, Iranian, Vietnamese, and Eritrean nationals. You hardly ever hear of problems with the Vietnamese arrivals, yet over a thousand crossed to Britain in the first quarter of 2024 alone, many seeking economic opportunity. But it's also true that small boats and a generally broken immigration system import some people who should not be here and who, in strictly economic and, in some cases social, terms are more trouble than they are worth. It is shameful that so many are in hotels, and then in certain cases prisons, awaiting often overly generous asylum decisions, with little fear of being deported. And those who are seeing increased deportation rates are not those you might expect: it's Romanians, Brazilians and Indians that have seen the biggest jump in returns, according to official statistics. Meanwhile, NHS Business Services has handed out nearly a million 'free passes' to asylum seekers in the last five years. This is 59 per cent of all such passes – well over half – entitling low-income residents to eye tests, free prescriptions, dental care, discounts on spectacles, lenses, and travel to and from appointments. Even wigs are funded by the body. I would dearly wish not to have to worry further about migration, but it is relevant that the three top nationalities arriving on the small boats come from states with cultures and belief systems which might be very different to our own. Back in the studio, as the Reform member stood up for the mothers peacefully protesting alongside the thugs outside the migrant hotel in Epping, the progressive broadcaster did, I think, level another decent point at him. This was that there is surely hypocrisy in on one hand being furious on behalf of women and girls, and on the other supporting Nigel Farage, who has in interviews called the misogynist Andrew Tate an 'important voice' who was giving boys 'perhaps a bit of confidence at school'. Tate is the sort of man no right-minded woman would want to encounter – ever. In a not dissimilar vein, there is Donald Trump, with his unpleasant history of allegedly sexually harassing and insulting women. The Magasphere in general is saturated in atavistic sexism and pound-shop traditionalism, yet its proponents are wasting little time condemning, for instance, the grooming gangs scandal here in Britain. This blew up again in large part because Elon Musk picked up on it. It would clearly be much better if those upset by girls and women being treated as prey by new arrivals into Britain – arrivals who in some cases have no right to be here – also recognised the illiberal misogyny of Andrew Tate. But defending women is defending women, whether it's cynically done or not. Unlike my co-panellist, who is a decent man, for many of these anti-immigration men, it's a mixed picture. This moment of men tussling over who is the real defender of women is not a new one. Using the protection of women as a means of justifying inflammatory or controversial policies was something that Blair and Bush governments were lambasted for after 9/11 when they invaded Afghanistan. Whatever the virtues and demerits of this invasion, it is indisputable that women fared better under US rule in Afghanistan. Before America's calamitous withdrawal, women could freely get education and jobs. Now they can't even show their eyes and hands, or become midwives. And on many other issues, the real culprits, when it comes to promoting harm to women and girls – at least in the last few decades – have been the new, hard Left. This devious Left always seems to favour those who mean women harm. It accuses those who question or God forbid protest the arrival of hundreds of thousands of young men of racism and bigotry but refuses to properly condemn any of the sexual crimes committed by them. To do so, they seem to feel, might start them on the slippery slope to racism, xenophobia, and horror of horrors, Brexitism. You never seem to hear a thing from the Left about the sex crimes visited on the Israeli women who were tortured, killed or kidnapped by Hamas. You only hear about how evil Israel – where women actually have full rights – is. When Salman Abedi set off a bomb at the Manchester Arena, killing 22 and injuring over a thousand, his history – and that of his family – was barely acknowledged by the progressive Left. This outrage was similarly difficult to discern when Abdul Ezedi, who came from Afghanistan in 2016, threw acid at a mother and two children in Clapham, and then killed himself. What was much louder was fury at the 'Islamophobia' said to follow such attacks. On the trans rights issues that have arisen in recent years, the progressive position hasn't just been on the side of the trans cause, it has been, in places, virulently against women. People who swear by their enlightened worldview hurled, and still hurl misogynistic abuse at JK Rowling. They demand that people who are biologically male compete against women in sports competitions. This is all a shame as the Left has a proud pedigree, in and beyond feminism, of championing women. But in its contemporary guise it seems more interested in empowering those who mean women and girls harm. This is hypocritical, unjust and, increasingly, scary.
