Michał Woś's activities around the Justice Fund. Marcin Bosacki on the arguments of the former deputy minister of justice


Michał Woś is nervous (…). I'm not surprised, he is in a very difficult situation, but his arguments can only be refuted with facts – said Marcin Bosacki (KO) in “Tak jest”. He also refuted the argumentation presented by the Sovereign Poland MP about what actions he could – in his opinion – take in the context of the Justice Fund and about the possibilities of financing the CBA.

The Sejm repealed on Friday immunity for a politician of Sovereign Poland, a member of parliament from the PiS club, Michał Wosi (in the past also a deputy minister of justice). The motion submitted by the prosecutor’s office is related to the investigation into the spending of money for the purchase of Pegasus software from the Justice Fund, as well as the spending of public funds for the purchase of a license to use Pegasus.

Woś, however, maintains that every action he took in this case was legal. He also maintained this position in the Monday edition of the “Tak jest” program on TVN24, of which he was a guest. According to him, prosecutors who spoke at the parliamentary immunity committee “were unable to demonstrate any signs of a prohibited act.” He assessed that he had a legal basis for his actions.

>>> Justice Fund Scandal. What's It About? <<<

A moment later, another guest of “Tak jest” Marcin Bosacki (KO), deputy chairman of the parliamentary committee of inquiry into the Pegasus case, commented on the theses presented by Woś. On Monday, he announced that he would file a report on the possibility of a crime being committed, among others, by Michał Woś in the context of transferring PLN 25 million from the FS to the CBA. This concerns allegations under Article 231, paragraphs 1 and 2, in connection with Article 271, paragraph 1 of the Penal Code. The report goes beyond the scope of the debate on lifting immunity.

§ 1. A public official who, exceeding his powers or failing to fulfil his duties, acts to the detriment of public or private interest, shall be subject to the penalty of deprivation of liberty for up to 3 years. § 2. If the perpetrator commits the act specified in § 1 in order to gain a material or personal benefit, he shall be subject to the penalty of deprivation of liberty for a term of between one and 10 years.

§ 1. A public official or other person authorized to issue a document who certifies an untruth in it regarding a circumstance that has legal significance, shall be subject to the penalty of deprivation of liberty for a term of between 3 months and 5 years. (Art. 271 certifying an untruth § 1 of the Act – Penal Code and art. 92a repealed section 1 of the Act on Road Transport – to the extent that they allow the application to the same natural person, for the same act that constitutes a breach of the obligations or conditions of road transport described in item 3.9 of Annex No. 3 to the Act on Road Transport, of liability for a crime and a financial penalty – as of 24.06.2017 were found to be inconsistent with the principle of ne bis in idem and the principle of proportionate response of the state to a violation of the law resulting from art. 2 liability for a consequential crime committed through failure to comply with the Constitution of the Republic of Poland by the judgment of the Constitutional Tribunal of 20.06.2017 file reference number P 124/15 (Journal of Laws of 2017, item 1214)

Michał Woś in “That's How It Is” in his activities around the Justice FundTVN24

Woś and Bosacki on CBA financing options

– Mr. Woś is nervous, it was visible in the last 20 minutes. I don't blame him, he is in a very difficult situation, but his arguments can only be refuted by facts – assessed Bosacki.

As he emphasized, “if the Supreme Audit Office, if the Public Finance Ombudsman, who is politically friendly with him, if the Senate committee (for Pegasus – ed.), which I chaired in the previous term, and now the Sejm committee and the prosecutor's office, all claim that he spent this money in a way that at least indicates a crime, then all he can do is interrupt, shout, lack of arguments, nervousness.”

SEE ALSO: Five things you need to know about the Justice Fund

The host of the program, Anna Jędrzejowska, referred to Woś's narrative, which – as she noted – indicates that the act stipulating that the CBA is financed from the state budget does not include the reservation that it is only about the state budget. Also in a Monday interview on TVN24, the MP from Sovereign Poland quoted Art. 4 section 1 of the Act on the CBA, where we read that “the activities of the CBA are financed from the state budget.” – There are no words “only and exclusively” – Woś replied.

Bosacki responded to this argument by emphasizing that PiS politicians had not used this argument before. – Only when the threat of finally being held accountable and going to jail for this began, they came up with the idea that if it is not explicitly written “exclusively from the state budget”, then it can be done – he said.

According to the KO MP, this service “can only be financed from the state budget, and not from the funds of individual ministries.”

Change in the Justice Fund's financial plan

Bosacki also recalled that in September 2017, Woś sent a letter to the then Deputy Minister of Finance, Teresa Czerwińska, in which, based on the indicated provisions of the Public Finance Act, he asked for consent to make changes to the financial plan of the Justice Fund – the amount was PLN 25 million, which went to the CBA and were used to purchase the Pegasus system.

As another deputy head of the special committee, Paweł Śliz, had already informed on Monday, and as Bosacki recalled on TVN24, in the application Woś pointed to Article 43, paragraph 8, point 4 of the Executive Penal Code, amending the earlier version, which included point 1 of the same paragraph.

READ MORE HERE: Former Minister of Finance: I would not have given a positive opinion if I had known that funds from the Justice Fund would go to the CBA

– The difference is that the first one (point 4) says that you can actually fight crime prevention and finance crime prevention. And the second one (i.e. point 1) says directly that the goal is only to help the injured and help those who are released from prison – he explained.

In his opinion, the previous government introduced this change “on purpose” so as not to have to reveal to the parliamentary committee for special services “what they buy”. – This was done for this purpose – he assessed. – Mr. Woś can play dumb from morning till night, but even his own spokesman for public finances said that it is illegal – he noted.

Marcin Bosacki on Michał Woś's activities around the Justice Fund

Marcin Bosacki on Michał Woś's activities around the Justice FundTVN24

Meanwhile, several minutes earlier, Woś argued in “Tak jest” that he “acted in accordance with the procedure” by requesting these changes to the ministry's management.

Jędrzejowska said that he did not present the actual purpose for which the money was to be spent, to which the politician stated that he “presented”. – I was talking about combating crime – he said.

The Sovereign Poland MP was also asked whether, once he is summoned to the prosecutor's office and probably hears charges, he would like to function in the public space as Michał Woś or Michał W. – Of course, Michał Woś. I encourage everyone to show their image, I have no problem with it – he replied.

Main photo source: TVN24

Source link