EMAIL DETAILS

Attorney Client Communication/Work Product confidential and privileged

Dear All

Good morning.

Gabriel and I had lunch here today and reviewed both the plans for
this week as well as the 6/15/17 decision by the Constitutional Court
relating to Article 246, et al, of the Criminal Code (the provision
which controls the 'Abuse of Power' provision and its legal elements).

Gabriel will return to Bucharest today and meet with our team there
tomorrow. The plan is to study the facts and circumstances of this
case and create a factual 'white paper' which sets forth both the
relevant exculpatory evidence, as well as the lack of credible
evidence here to support a conviction. In this regard transcripts,
witness statements and documentary evidence will be studied and
analyzed.

This 'White Paper' will be the basis for presenting our case/request
for relief to the relevant Romanian authorities--as well as to third
parties and banks--which have started to pressure Gabriel and his
businesses as a result of the recent conviction.

We will need the legal opinions of Prof Mico and Andreia on the
6/15/16 opinion by the Constitutional Court, but I believe that the
decision should directly and positively impact our case. The judges
found that the main element of the criminal statute (Abuse of Office)
upon which our conviction is based is vague and therefore creates
"unpredictability," "imprecision" and "lack of clarity" for potential
defendants (Par. 54).

For example, the judges noted that prosecutors have construed the
statutory phrase "inefficiently" (the statutory provision proscribes a
public 'clerk' not to "inefficiently fulfill") in a manner "which is
known only by the case prosecutor"(Par 14). In sum, the judges found
that the sole and discretionary interpretation of this material
element does not provide a defendant with fair notice, or require an
intent (or conduct) to "breach a law."

The judges seem to conclude by ruling that the "shall inefficiently
fulfill" element of the statute must be interpreted to mean that the
defendant must actually be "breaking [a] law" with some objective
conduct (eg., "prefiguring any benefit for himself or for any other
individual in exchange of his abuse or inefficient conduct" (Par. 13),
and thus the judges seem to "reconfigure" a material element of the
'Abuse of Power' offense (Par. 76).

So if the 6/15/16 decision holds that the 'Abuse of Power' criminal
offense now requires the public prosecutor to "expressly stipulate the
element as related to which such inefficiency is being analyzed" (Par.
57), there needs to be proof of a particular criminal act or "breach
of the law" by the defendant. In that case, our criminal conviction
should be vacated and the matter either dismissed, or sent back to the
lower court to be re-analyzed in light of the Constitutional Court's
6/15/16 decision---and the current charges then dismissed.

However, rather than relying exclusively on the decision, we will also
implement an overarching strategy which we discussed at lunch and will
further analyze when we meet this week. Specifically, we will evaluate
the timing of meeting with the relevant Romanian authorities and
perhaps try to do so this week. Timing here is of the essence as we
don't know how quickly the authorities will react to the court's
decision. Also, the adverse impact of the conviction on Gabriel's
businesses, credit and reputation is very serious.

I look forward to joining you this week in Bucharest.

Safe travels and best regards,
Louie


Sent from my iPhone


Sent from my iPhone