Moldovan regional leader jailed for aiding Russian meddling
Moldova, which will hold a parliamentary election on September 28, has regularly accused Moscow of interfering in domestic politics by stoking pro-Russian sentiments in a subversive campaign to topple its pro-European government.
Moscow denies the accusations of meddling in Moldova, a small former Soviet republic situated between Ukraine and EU and NATO member Romania.
Prosecutors said regional leader Evgenia Gutul had systematically sent undeclared funds into Moldova between 2019-2022 to finance the now-banned party of Ilan Shor, an exiled pro-Russian businessman.
Gutul was also found guilty of taking $2.5 million from an "organised criminal group" to coordinate the party's activities in several Moldovan regions.
Gutul, an opponent of Moldova's current government who has occasionally visited Moscow to meet top officials, had denied wrongdoing. She can appeal her sentence.
"This decision has nothing to do with justice," she said in a statement on Tuesday. "This is a political massacre."
The Kremlin condemned the sentence as politically motivated and accused Moldova of trampling on democracy.
"We see how the opposition is being clamped down in every possible way," said spokesman Dmitri Peskov.
More than 100 people rallied near the court in the Moldovan capital Chisinau on Tuesday in support of Gutul, chanting "Shame" and decrying the government.
Gutul, the leader of Gagauzia, a small autonomous region whose 140,000 residents are mainly ethnic Turks, has been placed on EU and U.S. sanctions lists on suspicion of seeking to destabilise Moldova.
Last year, Moldovan police said Shor had sent $24 million through Russia's Promsvyazbank to pay voters in a presidential election and referendum on joining the EU. Shor, who has previously been found guilty in Moldova of fraud, denies any wrongdoing.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
16 minutes ago
- The Independent
United Airlines flights across the US hit by ground stop caused by ‘technology issue'
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging. At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story. The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it. Your support makes all the difference.
Reuters
17 minutes ago
- Reuters
US to ease human rights criticism of El Salvador, Israel and Russia, WaPo reports
WASHINGTON, Aug 6 (Reuters) - The Trump administration plans to scale back criticism of El Salvador, Israel and Russia over human rights, the Washington Post reported on Wednesday, citing drafts of the State Department's annual human rights reports. The draft reports related to those countries were significantly shorter than the ones prepared by the administration of Democratic former President Joe Biden, who left office in January, when Donald Trump assumed the presidency. The State Department, which did not immediately respond to a request for comment from Reuters on Wednesday, has not yet officially released this year's reports, which cover last year's incidents. Usually, these annual reports are released around March or April each year. "The 2024 Human Rights Report has been restructured in a way that removes redundancies, increases report readability and is more responsive to the legislative mandates that underpin the report," a State Department official briefing reporters on Wednesday said. "The report is not meant to be a every single human rights abuse that's happened in every single country. It's meant to be illustrative and a broad picture of what the conditions of human rights are on the ground in each country."
Spectator
2 hours ago
- Spectator
The case for an independent Kent
I'm just back from Vancouver, where I was speaking at a fundraiser for the Free Speech Union of Canada. At the dinner afterwards I sat next to an Alberta separatist, a movement I was unaware of until now. Dating to the 19th century, it advocates for the secession of the province of Alberta and has been given a renewed impetus by the federal government's hostility to fossil fuels under Justin Trudeau and now Mark Carney. Petroleum is Alberta's biggest industry by far, and the revenue generated by energy exports means the province is a big contributor to Canada's national budget, with its net contributions dwarfing those of other provinces. Shouldn't Canada's liberal prime ministers just say 'thank you' instead of wagging their fingers at Albertans for not doing more to save the planet? Not surprisingly, the separatist party has done well in recent elections, and 65 per cent of United Conservative party voters say they would vote for independence in a referendum. I was told this could take place within a year. This gave me an idea about how to fix Britain's immigration problem. Why doesn't Kent county council, which changed hands from the Conservatives to Reform in May, demand that Kent secede from the United Kingdom? If it became independent it would not be bound by the European Convention on Human Rights and would have much more latitude when it comes to turning back the boats, processing asylum seekers offshore and deporting those illegal immigrants currently accommodated in hotels. I suppose it's possible the people-smugglers might steer their dinghies towards East Sussex instead, but that county could then follow suit. Indeed, the entire south coast could become an independent sovereign state. I know, I know. Wouldn't it be simpler to withdraw from the ECHR than to break up the UK? That's the policy of Reform UK, but there are political difficulties. For one, it might jeopardise the Good Friday Agreement, which refers to the ECHR in several of its provisions. That's because the only way to persuade Sinn Fein to sign up was to assure them the human rights of former terrorists would be protected by Strasbourg rather than the hated British judiciary. Would they regard the agreement as void if Britain withdrew from the Convention? Another problem with withdrawing is that it might derail the Trade and Cooperation Agreement with the EU. The EU has the right to terminate the part relating to 'Law Enforcement and Judicial Co-operation in Criminal Matters' if the UK is no longer bound by the Convention. Not everyone thinks these are insurmountable obstacles. Lord Lilley, one of my Tory colleagues on the red benches, wrote an excellent paper last month for the Centre for Policy Studies in which he argued that the Belfast Agreement could survive Britain's departure from the Convention provided ECHR rights remain incorporated into Northern Ireland law, and while it's true that the EU could stop co-operating with the UK when it comes to tackling crime, why would it? 'To forgo that co-operation would be a self-inflicted loss,' he says. But I'm not confident that Nigel Farage, newly installed in No. 10, would hold his nerve when Sir Humphrey pointed out these problems. 'I think you'll find there are some more nuanced positions you could take that would confound your critics, Prime Minister.' A wily cabinet secretary would also point out that even if the UK did withdraw, it would still be party to the Geneva Refugee Convention and obliged to offer asylum to anyone with a 'well-founded fear of persecution'. The beauty of my proposal is that the newly independent country of Kentland wouldn't be bound by the Refugee Convention either. According to Article 16 of the Vienna Convention on Succession of States: 'A newly independent State is not bound to maintain in force, or to become a party to, any treaty by reason only of the fact that at the date of the succession of States the treaty was in force in respect of the territory to which the succession of States relates.' Admittedly, that Convention has not yet been widely ratified, but m'learned friends tell me this 'clean slate' principle is broadly accepted. So there's the solution. Make Kent – or the entire south coast if necessary – an independent sovereign state and dispatch a bunch of Reform councillors armed with harpoons to intercept the small boats. Any undocumented migrants that got through could be sent to the Isle of Sheppey for 'processing'. I imagine the prospect of being held in a pen on Sheep Island for several years would be enough to put off even the most determined.
