The Party of Socialists of Moldova denied the detention of Dodon


A criminal case against the former president was opened on May 18 because of a video published by ex-deputy Iurie Renita in 2020. Earlier, the media reported that the ex-president was detained for 72 hours in connection with the treason case. In May 2022, the Court of Appeal reversed this decision. On it, the former head of the Democratic Party, businessman Vladimir Plahotniuc and his deputy Sergei Yaralov hand over to the president a package, which, according to Renita, contains a large sum. Dodon denied receiving money from Plahotniuc. Dodon's office and home are being searched in his presence, the party representative said. Article content Authors Tags

Источник rbc.ru The Socialist Party explained that Dodon was not detained, but was present at the searches in his house and office

Searches in the house of Igor Dodon
Former President of Moldova (2016–2020) Igor Dodon was not detained, deputy chairman of the Moldovan party told Reuters Socialists Vlad Batryncha, whose honorary chairman is a politician. Dodon and Plahotniuc are discussing the creation of a coalition in parliament that would have a constitutional majority. Before that, the Prosecutor General's Office announced that Dodon's house was being searched. According to TV-8, the head of state mentioned “notes” in the conversation, which he “constantly” wrote to Russian President Vladimir Putin. The ex-president is suspected under four articles of the Criminal Code of Moldova: 337 (treason), 1812 (financing of a political party by a criminal organization), 343 (passive corruption) and 330.2 (illegal enrichment). He accused the law enforcement agencies of trying to get him to flee the country and divert attention from the problems of Moldova. According to the portal, together with the former head of state, his brother-in-law Petru Merineanu was detained, who allegedly tried to destroy the evidence. Earlier, Deschide.md, citing sources, reported that Dodon was detained for 72 hours as part of a criminal case initiated against him under several articles. After the video was published, the prosecutor's office refused to open a case, failing to identify “elements of crime” in the released footage: the department explained that they could not establish the contents of the package.