PDA

View Full Version : The State-Mafia simbyosis in Bulgaria



Magda Hassan
12-27-2010, 08:42 AM
1
The State-Mafia simbyosis in
Bulgaria
Shorthand Report
of the hearing to gen. Vanyo Tanov, ex-director of „Fight against
Organized Crime” State Directorate at the session of the Parliamentary
Commission for Interior Security and Public Peace on March 26 2008
published in the bulgarian weekly newspaper “Kapital” on April 12 2008
In every investigation for the last two years there appeared a name of an official from
the Ministry of the Interior connected with information leak-out. In every investigation
in the grey sector there had always been a name of a state officer– Customs, Tax
Authorities etc. - who helped those people. In every investigation there is a name of
politician from the Parliament or from the Government. We canʼt have success in
any action if we donʼt remove all these people. However, it leads to serious conflicts.
General Vanyo Tanov,
Ex-director of the „Fight against organized Crime” State Directorate
2
INTRODUCTION
On the next pages youʼll find a very attractive reading – the conversation held in the
Parliamentary Commission for Interior Security and Public Peace on March 26, the current
year. This was the beginning of the scandal in the Ministry of the Interior when the exdirector
of „Fight against organized Crime” State Directorate, General Vanyo Tanov, was
invited on a hearing. After his story the Members of Parliament decided that the
information they had heard should be sent to the Prosecutorʼs Office. According to the
Chairman Mincho Spasov there are facts about crime commited by the high leadership of
the Ministry of the Interior.
Shorthand report of the meeting was received in the “Kapital” newspaper office by
an anonymous sender. A source of the newspaper confirmed that the text was authentic
and parts of it were identical to the quotes that were published in the official reports.
Thеse facts give us a reason to think that the document is authentic. We know that the
complete shorthand report contains a lot of names, impressive statements and poignant
information. Despite the fact we decided to publish it. We believe that the situation needs
this for a few reasons. Disclosures ruined the belief in some main institutions. There are
enough facts to think that instead of defending the public interest, they work against it.
Facts and statements that tell about a deep crisis were shown. At such a moment the role
that the media play for the democratic attitude and relations is very difficult. It is also
difficult to estimate where the ethical borders are crossed in publishing some information.
We decided to publish the whole shorthand report because we think it is in public
interest. By publishing it we donʼt claim anything and we donʼt blame anyone. We give the
opportunity to everyone to get familiar with what was said in the parliamentary
commission. Well-nformed people will have the arguments to insist on knowing the truth
and having radical changes and reforms in the Ministry of the Interior. At the end we have
chosen extracts from the official report of the commission. The opinion of the Members of
Parliament is reflected in it and the reply Minister Petkov gave a day after General Tanev.
Unfortunately, we donʼt have the whole conversation.
3
The Chairman Mincho Spasov: Dear colleagues, we continue with the next item of
todayʼs schedule.
2. Hearing of Mr. Iliyan Iliev and Mr. Vanyo Tanov
The Chairman Mincho Spasov: Firstly, let me read you the reply to the questions we
posed last time.
You know we posed five questions to the Ministry of Interior, and here is the letter
with the answers personally addressed to me.
Dear Mr. Spasov, as a response to your questions regarding the legal proceedings
initiated against high leaders of the Ministry of Interior, hereby I provide you with the
following information. Firstly, the Information and Archive Directorate at the Ministry of
Interior do not have any registered form, case or copy of an operative report concerning
Ivan Atanasov Ivanov, because this person has never been made a subject of
report,neither have been undertaken any operative actions involving special spying
devices against him. For that reason, neither a correspondence, nor any information
bearers are known t be have been destroyed.
Secondly, the political and executive/administrative leaders of Ministry of Interior
havenʼt received any information about non regulated contacts this person has been
involved into and which at any point have been subject to operative control.
Thirdly, between October 1, 2006 and December 31, 2007 645 signals on some
Ministry of Interior officialsʼ corrupted behavior have been investigated by the Internal
Security section. The investigation of 306 of those signals ha has been completed. In
agreement with the approved methodology, 116 of the signals were considered wellgrounded.
Against the high officials in questions necessary measures have been adopted
in compliance with both the Ministry of Interior Law and the Classified Information Defense
Law.
The respective prosecutorʼs offices have been informed about the crimes
committed, 63 pre-legal cases have been initiated , 67 officers have been fired, for other
63 signals legal measures have been taken, that is in compliance with the Ministry of
Interior Law. 190 signals have been considered ungrounded. 229 signals are still a matter
of investigation.
We have received a letter from the State Agency for National Security.
Mr. Chairman, after hearing the Commissionʼs leaders, an extended session was
hold at SANS on March, 19 with all the structuresʼ leaders attending. There were
discussed some questions, posed by MPʼs during the hearing procedure, as well as their
opinions and recommendations regarding the work of SANS. The question submitted by
the Member of Parliament Atanasov concerning the meeting between the Minister of
Interior, Mr. Plamen Galev, and Mr. Angel Hristov was also a subject of discussions.
Mr. Chairman, I was informed that in SANS they do have at their disposal a
document about the meeting in question, that took place on December 9, 2006. Before the
hearing procedure, the SANS representatives were not aware of this information. I am
taking the opportunity to apologize to the members of the Commission for Internal security
for the incorrect answer we delivered.
4
This letter was a little unclear about the purpose of the meeting, so I asked Mr.
Sertov to make it clear with another letter, which we received subsequently.
Mr. Chairman, with reference to your question, we hereby provide you additional
information on the meeting that took place on 9 December, 2006.
At the beginning of December 2006, information was received from some
independent operative resources about serious tension between structures connected with
the force groups. This information was reported, initially orally but later through the
established written channels, to the General Secretary of the Ministry of the Interior,
General Iliya Iliev. Based on it, operational discussions involving different representatives
of the structures of the Ministry of the Interior were conducted in the General's presence.
The main goal was to prevent discrediting Bulgaria at the very eve of her accession to the
EU on 1 January, 2007. The senior management of the Ministry of the Interior decided to
make an urgent meeting with representatives of the force groups in order to sanitize them
and to prevent public confrontations. This meeting took place on 9 December, 2006 and
involved the Minister of the Interior Mr. Rumen Petkov as well as a representative of the
National Security Service who mentioned it in a report. The report has been sent to the
Minister of the Interior. Mr. Rumen Petkov put the resolution “to the General Secretary of
the Ministry of the Interior and to the Director of the National Security Service” on the
document and added the text: "First, all measures for neutralizing the groups. Second,
measures for purposefully enlarging the information. To be put together with the
information available to General V. Petrov”.
A third letter has been received, from the State Agency, addressed directly to me.
Mr. Chairman, from the “Coordination of information-analytic activity” directorate in
the Ministry of the Interior and with the agreement of a person who is subject to
investigation by the National Security Service, in the Ministry of the Interior is opened an
investigation procedure about reliability concerning Mr.Ivaylo Prodanov as an operative
assistant to the Ministry of the Interior.
In order to Carry out his official duties, it was necessary to grant him access to
classified information that is a state secret with TOP Secret level of security and to
classified information of NATO and EU. During the investigation it is discovered that Mr.
Ivaylo Prodanov has relations with persons, who are of operative interest and that these
relations raise doubts about his intensions to keep the state secret.
These facts are reported orally by the former Director of the National Security
Service, Gen. Ivan Tchobanov to the Secretary General of the Ministry of the Interior, Gen.
Iliya Iliev, in order to take the necessary administrative actions.
Colleagues, attention please. I am just receiving a letter from the General
Prosecutor.
Dear Mr. Spasov, I am sending you a statement from General-lieutenant Iliya
Todorov Iliev to the members of the National Assembly.
I want to inform you that before the commission deliberation, I talked again, for the
second time, to the Main Prosecutor in order to arrange Gen. Ilievʼs presence.
5
He informed me that in this very moment his wife is with him and that with her help this
statement is communicated.
Members of the Assembly, on 25 March Iʼve been accused because of my work as
a General Secretary of the Ministry of the Interior. This accusation restricts my freedom to
answer all the questions that will possibly be directed to me because my answers may be
used against me. My statements could have helped create more transparency in the work
of the Ministry of the Interior. I am subject to illegal repression whose main goal is to limit
my freedom to participate in the public debate about the problems in the Ministry of the
Interior. For this reason I am forced to decline the opportunity that the Supreme Counsel of
Military Prosecutors gives me to appear before you.
Mr. Atanas Atanasov: Let the chairman read this letter before the journalists.
Chairman Mincho Spasov: This letter from Mr. Iliya Iliev is not classified information. I
suppose that we will make it public. But the other documents are secret and all of you
should keep the rules.
So, is Mr. Tanov here? I suggest that we begin the hearing of Gen. Vanio Tanov.
Talks between the members of the Parliament in the room.
Chairman Mincho Spasov: Hello, Mr. Tanov, thank you for coming here to answer
questions related to the work of the Ministry of the Interior about drugs traffic. I think there
is a big interest and members of the Assembly will have a lot of questions, so let us be
disciplined during the debate. I give the word to Mr. Tanov to answer the question that has
been asked, and after that we well hear other questions as well. Please, M. Tanov.
Mr. Vanyo Tanov: To talk so generally in a synthetic is difficult for me but I know that
before I quitted service, a note of general character has been made, and this note is there.
In this general note, it is made clear, based on the available operative information, which
are the main groups that operate on the territory of the country, and I believe, from
memory, that they are two. One of the serious groups is that of Mr. Dragomir Raykovichʼs,
who is as a matter of fact the second man of Kuyovich. The other one is that of the now
publicly known Galevi brothers. I mean, these are the groups in a synthetic way. I repeat
again that this note could be found in the directorate “Drugs”.
For the two years during which I was director there, weʼve achieved good results at
catching some quantities. But we couldnʼt reach the real laboratories and or catch the real
perpetrators. We had achievements in the case of two laboratories, after all the necessary
technical devices to control have been installed. But after all we only caught the drugs and
the laboratories, and could never reach the perpetrators themselves.
6
Information was leaking from the service. For these two years Iʼve tried to find out who
there people were, some of them have been caught and suspended from the service
because they worked for these groups. When I was a director of the service access to
classified information was denied to some of them but after that they appealed before the
commission and got their access back. In one way or another, they were led to resign later
by themselves.
The last case in the service was related to the already publicly well-known case
Kuyovich. Things that Kuyovich said during his interrogation helped us to make an
investigation concerning Mr. Vasko Velinov, who was suspicious before that also. Iʼve
used all needed technical devices and at last we revealed that there is a direct phone
between Mr. Velinov and Mr. Dragomir Raykovich. We revealed that every day on this
phone Mr. Velinov has reported information from the service. We put spy devices at a
service car and revealed other things also. We sent him to this kind of operations, in which
he can exchange information with Mr. Raykovich. It was clear that theyʼve recruited the
officer that put the secret information in the electronic system. Theyʼve tried to recruit the
Head of the Secretariat also who has all the secret correspondence even before me.
This person was successfully investigated. Weʼve found Mr. Dragomir Raykovichʼs
direct phone, but the military prosecutors had to search the home of Mr. Vesko Velinov for
his phone, they were late and the direct phone disappeared. This is all I can tell you.
Chairman Mincho Spasov: What does it mean that the phone disappeared?
Mr. Vanyo Tanov: It wasnʼt found. I think it was taken out of the house during the search,
but my services didnʼt take part in this search. Mr. Velinov was investigated by “Inner
Security” section and we didnʼt have the rights to take part in the investigation.
Chairman Minch Spasov: When did that happen?
Mr. Vanyo Tanov: I think February 2007. Thanks to the information that Kuyovich gave us
weʼve discovered a new laboratory that was being created at this moment. Before that
three Turkish men were arrested. Weʼve made a controlled delivery with the Turkish
services and they were arrested.
7
I remember one of them very well – Ivan-The Policeman. As far as I remember he was
sentenced to 25 years imprisonment just 2 months later.
I think that they were worried that the above mentioned detained persons in Turkey
had revealed the place of the laboratory. That is why they began making a new one. The
place was fixed, the technical appliances were put in place and at the same time we were
working on Vesko Velinov. Only some people knew about the laboratory because we
hadnʼt discovered all the moles at the service yet. I know that at that time they managed to
pull in Mr. Raykovich, a professor from the University of Chemistry in order to produce for
them a recipe for synthetic drug production.
At the time of the investigation there was a car that came from Plovdiv and brought
materials for synthetic drugs production. The driver was a policeman from Plovdiv. At that
moment, unfortunately, it turned out that a person from the "External" had quitted and was
currently working with Dragomir Raykovich; he had recognised his colleague…
Chairman Mincho Spasov: Which "External"? The Ministry of Foreign Affairs?
Mr. Vanyo Tanov: I apologies. It is the Service but I called it External Observation in short.
So, the action to detain [those people] was checked out. Later on, the external observation
seemed to be following that car but it lost it. At least that was what they reported back. It
became clear that there was an official from the "External" involved. The materials for that
official were sent, I think to the General Secretary but I can't remember. I am not aware
what happened after that, but I know that at the time I was there, the laboratory didnʼt not
become operational and Mr. Raykovich wasnʼt arrested.
Chairman Mincho Spasov: Was the person youʼre talking about removed from his
position?
Mr. Vanyo Tanov: I canʼt tell you because I didnʼt have any rights at “External
Observation” service. Our job was to discover these things during the operative
investigation and to give it to the hierarchy; they were the ones to take decisions.
Chairman Mincho Spasov: Is there any case that you raise the awareness of, as it was
the case with the person who had been from the "External Observation" and who was
disclosing information, and the person remained in office?
Mr. Vanyo Tanev: Yes, there was at the beginning when I was director of ”Fight against
Organized Crime” State Directorate.. I was appointed, I think on 29 December 2005, in
December, I think that it was December 30 or 31; I am almost certain. The director of the
Police National Service at that time General Valentin Petrov, asked his ex officer, Mr. Krasi
Mladenov, to find out if two persons, customs officers, from Haskovo were investigated
and if they had been, whether on the two of them special secret devices were used.
On 31th, the Director of the regional department was asked to go to the office …
8
Chairman Mincho Spasov: 31th of which month?
Mr. Vanyo Tanov: On December 31 2005, just before the New Yearʼs Day. On that day he
looked at the investigation report, at the one for the special secret devices as well, and
reported it to the Director of National Police then in charge. On 3 January, I was informed
about this case, reported it to General Secretary and asked the case to be investigated. An
investigation has been done, everybody was interrogated, and phones were checked.
There was no doubt that such information was asked for, and the investigation report was
sent to General Secretary since we, the directors, were directly reporting to him at the
time.
On the same day, December 31, I think around 13.30h, there was a call to Mr.
Valentin Petrov from Mr. Georgi Samuilov, regarding gas smuggling. From the messages I
received then it was something like that – Samuilov called him, Petrov answered that he
was in Asenovgrad, but coming down immediately. They had met but I donʼt know where
and after the meeting Mr. Samuilov called to a person from the alcohol business in
Peshtera and told him that they had a problem and it would be solved with the help of …I
canʼt recall the exact name of the person, but I think it has to be checked.
I reported this information to Minister of Interior. A few days later he told me that he
had ordered to Mr. Petrov to conduct the meetings in question. In February 2006, on a
national meeting where the new structure of the Ministry of the Interior had been
discussed, I said that I didnʼt want to be director of the service anymore. I went on saying
that I would continue to perform my duties until the legal act came into force but
professionally I didnʼt trust General Petrov and I couldnʼt be his subordinate.
During that meeting I was asked several times to remain in the post. I refused at
first but some days later in a private conversation with the Minister, he convinced me to
stay because the results of the Service then were really good, there were on going partner
inspections and the conclusive report on the Ministry of Interior had to be delivered. At that
time 80 % of the whole work of the Ministry was connected with our Service and was
related to the organised crime and corruption. The Service showed good results and then
the minister told me that he was really glad with my work and there was no way to tell in
public why I quitted. I therefore decided to stay and perhaps this was my greatest mistake.
Chairman Mincho Spasov: When did that happen?
Mr. Vanyo Tanov: I canʼt tell you exactly but maybe in March. I donʼt remember exactly. It
was related to the entering into force of the legal act, 1 May 2006. It was definitely before
that date but I can't remember. But it can be verified. All the generals were there at the
meeting and they knew I made this statement in public. There were also the Deputy
Ministers and I said that I do not want to remain in duty.
9
When the Minister asked me to take the lead of that Service, I didnʼt want to and I
told him a lot of personal arguments and such gained in the professional experience, but
all against my nomination for the post. I understood the work of the Service in another way.
I think that the Service has to work really seriously against the organized criminality, but
has to get clear the whole structure and to make some actions after that. Not to be done
such unimportant and PR actions because catching 20 or 50 kilograms is a temporary
condition. But if we talk about drugs, there are drugs everywhere – in contraband, in
economic crimes, and we had to understand who the persons who helped those activities
were. In every investigation for the last two years there appeared a name of an official
from the Ministry of the Interior connected with information leak-out. In every investigation
in the grey sector there had always been a name of a state officer– Customs, Tax
Authorities etc. - who helped those people. In every investigation there is a name of
politician from the Parliament or from the Government. We canʼt have success in any
action if we donʼt remove all these people. However, it leads to serious conflicts.
That was the situation and thatʼs the reason why I declared that I would find a lot of
irregularities because I had already created some kind of concept about it, as a director of
a regional department, which was a only one image representing the work of the State
Agency. I had a picture that most of the operations were connected to information which
was obtained from the regional sections. But the Service made cooperative fulfillments and
more PR actions without any considerable contribution to developing those persons. And
that those actions inevitably would lead to conflict with my chief Mr. Valentin Petrov.
Honestly speaking, for that simple reason I agreed to take the job until the Law came into
force. While we were going to the appointment with the President, the Minister said it was
wrong to let them know that would be only for 6 or 8 months at these job. I agreed with his
arguments because it couldnʼt be announced to the Service indeed that I would be there
for 6 or 8 months. It was not serious, indeed, to be announced. Therefore at that meeting
firstly I said that it was such a stipulation but the Minister said that it was cancelled.
Because of that I wanted to be dismissed.
Chairman Mincho Spasov: I have a specific question to you. You said that in many cases
you have stated moles through which information leaks out. In which service can we find
more detailed information concerning this fact and the kinds of precautions taken against
these people?
Mr. Vanyo Tanov: So, first, the Service which worked on clarifying the information,
connected to the iinternal corruption, was at “Fight against Organized Crime” State
Directorate. It consisted of two components - “Internal Corruption” sector, which
investigated the Ministry of the Interior officers, Capital Investigation Service and
Prosecutorʼs Office, and “External Corruption” sector, related to citizens. This is the place
where the information can be found. Later, I donʼt know why this Service was taken out of
the Directorateʼs structure. There was a period of about 1 or 2 months when it was moved
to
10
General Secretary, despite my objection, because the General Secretary had no operative
authority. When someone wanted permissions for special spy devices, it was necessary to
come to me to sign them. However, I refused to do that because after all those
government officials werenʼt under my authority. Later the mistake was corrected and that
service was transferred to the General Secretary, Mr. Valentin Petrov. So signals for
corruption, related to the Ministry of the Interior government officials, were transferred to
that service. Later it came to be referred to as “Internal Security” Service.
Chairman Mincho Spasov: Not to the Inspectorate, but to the “Internal Security”?
Mr. Vanyo Tanov: “Internal Security” is an operative service and the Inspectorate is not.
The Inspectorate doesnʼt have any operative authorities and cannot provide investigations
for the Ministry of the Interior government officials. In my opinion the Inspectorate can
accomplish only open warning checkings on signals received, because according to the
law it doesnʼt possess other authorities. Although I have to clarify something and I donʼt
know the reasons for it, but all the information about the investigations for the Ministry of
the Interior government officials are kept in the Inspectorate. From my point of view this is
a serious offense against the law because itʼs not possible a non-operative service to keep
the information of an operative one.
Chairman Mincho Spasov: Mr. Dall for specifying question, please.
Mr. Kasim Dall: You said that the Minister has told you that youʼve been chosen by him.
How were you invited to take that position?
Mr. Vanyo Tanov: I was invited, when on his instruction General Iliev was sent to Rousse
to talk to me. I refused and sent him back to Sofia and after an hour the Minister called me
and said that at 12 p.m. I had to be in the Ministry of the Interior.
Chairman Mincho Spasov: Colleagues, now you may ask questions.
Mr. Vanyo Tanov: I want to say that yesterday I was inquired in Military Prosecutorʼs
Office. Besides the cases I told you about earlier, I gave information on many others,
related to operative investigations. The case, which is widely discussed in the media, is
about the Galevi brothers. Another investigation case is with pseudonym “The Hotel”.
There is one more case about the Customs at Gorublyane, about the Chief of the Customs
in particular. There were about five investigations which were enough to convince me that
Military Prosecutorʼs Office and the State Agency for National Security would try to do their
job if they worked in synchrony.
Chairman Mincho Spasov: Those are five investigations, which are supposed in leaking
out of information, right?
Mr. Vanyo Tanov: Yes, definitely. And if they do some checkings, I can show and mention
other investigations. Honestly speaking, I donʼt mention them now because Iʼm worried
that the information for the mentioned ones will leak out and all the documents about these
investigations will be crossed out, erased and missrepresented. There is a serious case.
11
On a day off again the deputy chief (a lady) of “Fight against Organized Crime” General
Directorate was ordered to make a list of all investigations in the State Service, comprising
all the pseudonyms, the persons in those investigations and the operative government
officials who work on them. The list was made in three copies and when I came back …
Chairman Mincho Spasov: Do you know who ordered this?
Mr. Vanyo Tanov: It was an extreme situation, I asked that lady who gave orders to her
and she said “Leadership”. She didnʼt make it clear which is that “Leadership”. Then I
asked her why she didnʼt call me and what made it necessary on a Saturday to call all the
officers who had all the information and the same to be taken out. There was Minister
Petkanov and maybe other people who knew too that the information was kept in the
Archive. If someone, no matter what kind of director he/she was, had the right to get
familiar with the investigation and report about that, that person could read it, and there
was an inventory that he/she had to sign there but the whole procedure in the Ministry of
the Interior was very mixed-up. Each document that came out of the services instead of
being reported firstly, was given to the Head of the Cabinet for a final opinion and from
that point on it was decided which of them to be reported and which not. It was impossible
for any person to find his/her document.
Mrs. Tatyana Doncheva: Who do you refer to by saying the Head of the Cabinet?
Mr. Vanyo Tanov: The Head of the Cabinet of the Minister of the Interior. His name is
Sasho Petrov. There was a case when I reported to a person at a high position in the
government administration about the Galevi brothers mentioned and three days later it
occurred that two very important verifications had been sent to the service but they were
not at the Ministry. At that moment they occurred on Mr. Valentin Petrov`s desk. The
General Prosecutor knows this very well. I received information that those verifications will
be taken out to compromise me and I went to the Minister to ask for them. He said that he
doesnʼt know where they are and that he is not going to look for my verifications. I knew
they were on the desk of Mr. Valentin Petrov, I had to go to General Prosecutor and tell
him that if they donʼt give me back the verifications, I will give warning in Military
Prosecutorʼs Office. Immediately, from the State Directorate was sent an officer to check
the Secretariate where those verifications were because they were signed to my name.
Chairman Mincho Spasov: You sent these verification forms from the service to the
Ministry, right?
Mr. Vanyo Tanov: The case with those verifications is exactly like this. These are two
secret verifications which were asked from me urgently, late in the night again, about
20:00 oʼclock. We have made them but the Secretariate was…
Chairman Mincho Spasov: Who asked for them?
12
Mr. Vanyo Tanov: General Valentin Petrov insisted on having them. I visited him but the
verifications werenʼt filed in the outgoing register. He told me he wanted to get acquainted
with them.
Chairman Mincho Spasov: That is to say that they werenʼt entered in the register?
Mr. Vanyo Tanov: Yes, because they were made at 20:00 oʼclock. He wanted them
urgently; he said he want to see them at that very moment.
Chairman Mincho Spasov: You gave them without being entered in the outgoing
register?
Mr. Vanyo Tanov: I gave them to him in order to get acquainted with them but I wanted
them back and I received them. He said he was in a hurry because he had to go to
Gergovʼs birthday party. He brought them back to me and I went back to the service. In the
morning I put these verifications at the mail-box to be entered in the outgoing registry. At
that moment the Minister called and asked me about those verifications. I grabbed one
copy and left the other one in …
Chairman Mincho Spasov: Without being filed into the register or entered there as
outgoing, again, right?
Mr. Vanyo Tanov: I canʼt force the Minister to sign them.
Mr. Georgi Georgiev: OK, but isnʼt there any standard procedure, this is a secret
information?
Mr. Vanyo Tanov: There was such a procedure 2 years ago but now – not at all. So,
before that situation I described, I had had no other similar occasion to report like that.
Every single day there are phone calls and someone asks for verification urgently and they
are brought there and given by hand. Messages from special spy devices are also brought
and given by hand, and no one registers that they were read. Then they bring them back
to the post service at work and report on them. After some time they ask what you have
done with these massages and itʼs very interesting how they know about them. The way of
no secret document could be followed. I have check-ups, in which I wanted some kind of
sanction on this, but first they have to go to General Valentin Petrov, then to the General
Secretary who has to confirm some precautions and after two months they are given to
me. They have held them for two months in the pay office and they didnʼt enter them, I did
it. Having outgoing number, they left the service, but they were given to me with another
outgoing number (after 2 months) and it was from the previous day. They were received in
the Directorate and given to me with a date of the resolution two months after receiving. I
no longer need this resolution because what I wanted has already finished and it could not
be done. This can be seen if the Archive of the Secret Secretariate is opened. On
principle, the Minister, if you find a check-up, which he put a date on…?
13
The Chairman Mincho Spasov: Do you know, that you also break the rules when you
give these check–ups and …
Remarks between the deputies in the hall.
The Chairman Mincho Spasov: Colleagues, please, as you see we are trying to be
objective at the most. I want this question to be clarified, too.
Mr. Vanyo Tanov: After that case, which happened, I didnʼt bring by hand even a single
check-up. After the case when check-ups were lost and because of two of them in
particular I could have gone to prison, I stopped giving. It doesnʼt matter if it urgent or not, I
donʼt care.
Chairman Mincho Spasov: Any questions, please?
Mr. Yane Yanev: One question to make it more precise, Mr. Chairman. Do these two
check-ups concern directly the problems about synthetic drugs or were they intended for
something else?
Mr. Vanyo Tanov: One of them concerned something very serious. May be one or two
days before that, I canʼt remember exactly, one night a check-up was required again in a
line of terror and it concerned a company, Aleksey Petrovʼs one.
I had given orders to the government officials, they worked all night long, in the
morning I went to Service and at 7:30 the check–up was ready and filed. The General
Secretary told me “I donʼt want this check-up, itʼs for the Minister”. He called the Minister, I
donʼt remember if he was alone or not, I had other obligations in the Ministry also, and
having entered into the service, government officials came and they said “Boss, what was
this check-up for? Before you came back, all the phones were stopped”.
And one of these check-ups is the one in which I described that two hours after the
information was in the Ministry, all the telephones have stopped. Information came up in
the message about which telephones exactly to be stopped.15 minutes later there was
another phone call about all four suggestions to come to an end because someone was
reading the check-ups and the same person reported which phones to be stopped.
I wrote a second check-up to inform the leadership that after a report the investigation has
been stopped. The same was the case with the direct investigation of the contraband
concerning the Chief of the Gorublyne Customs. From this investigation we understood
that there was an investigation on Sasho Petrov, the Chief of the Cabinet of the Minister.
The case, on which was the correspondence against Sasho Petrov, was that Valentin
Petrov wanted check-up for a company that was to take a gambling license for a casino.
Government officials made a summary that showed that he couldnʼt get a license because
there was a condition for the origin of the capital, clean legal past, and money abuse. I
sent this to General Valentin Petrov but I wasnʼt sure if it would go to the commission. And
then I allowed myself to send a second copy in the State Commission on Gambling.
14
Of course a license was given to this company and I sent a new check-up, written
again, to the Minister and there I described all circumstances. I was punished for this
because I neglected Valentin Petrov and I reported directly to the Minister. I didnʼt know
how to do it because it didnʼt matter - the final point to end up was one and the same. On
that check-up the Minister wrote again without a date the materials to be given to the
Prosecutorʼs Office. But it was turned back. I donʼt know how it was returned but it ended
in the cash-box of the Deputy Director of the ”Fight against Organized Crime” State
Directorate. When she resigned, she gave my secretary a folder in which was it. When it
came to the service, she took it for her and put it in the cash-box. It was given by hand to
her. I didnʼt know what to do with this check-up. It was written to be given to the
Prosecutorʼs Office but it would be a problem for me with the Minister. If I donʼt give it, the
Minister will tell me that I am corrupted and that I have hidden the materials. There is no
right way. I decided to give it to Prosecutorʼs Office, so whatever happened, it would be
just between the two of us.
I remember it was the Policeman Day, a great holiday, journalists asked me and I
said that Sasho Petrov was guilty; he couldnʼt hide behind the collective responsibility. If he
signed although there were such facts, it was only his responsibility. At the same time, on
January 3, when I came back to work after the New Yearʼs holidays, the chief of
“Contraband” service Vasko Gochev and Mitev, who worked on the investigation on the
customs officer (the woman), came to me trembling nervously. The scheme of all the
persons connected to that customs officer was clear. The only missing name was the one
of a man with the nickname “The Lighter”. On January 8, it became clear that “The Lighter”
was the Minister. The same customs officer called to Mr. Viktor Valkov and asked him
what would happen then, when there was a case filed against the Head of the Cabinet of
“The Lighter”. One of the government officials, Iliya, said he had the opportunity to retire
and he would do it. The other one, Mr. Vasko Gochev, was retired after I left.
Mrs. Tatyana Doncheva: I have some questions, Mr. Tanov. You were Chief of “Fight
against Organized Crime” State Directorate from September 29th, 2005 until when?
Mr. Vanyo Tanov: Until July, 15th 2007.
Mr. Tatyana Doncheva: That means that in 2006 you were the Chief of this service. We
heard about Mr. Valentin Petrov and also about the Minister and the Head of the Cabinet.
A person, who had been working in the Cabinet of General Iliev for 6 months, was
connected to the Galevi brothers, and the same person was appointed due to a command
of the Minister. Do you know this person and what will you say about those relationships of
the General Secretary, at that time Ilia Iliev?
Mr. Vanyo Tanov: I will answer to you. The Galevi brothers were investigated. For the
reason that we had been receiving information about the persons in question constantly,
we made a correspondence, named PPO.
15
This is a correspondence for preliminary operative report, which is legal. The goal
was check–ups on the report to be avoided because information on our operative interests
towards the Galevi brothers would have leaked out that way. Special spy devices were
conducted on the persons in question, the Galevi brothers. During the implementation of
the special spy devices, as I want to mention here, they were repeated in the meaning of
direct control in the service. A very serious conversation was carried out between the
Galevi brothers and the Chief of Capital Investigation Service at that time, and that
conversation was in the sense of …
Mrs. Tatyana Doncheva: Who is he?
Mr. Vanyo Tanov: Aleksandrov. A check-up was received earlier, maybe on 23rd it must
have been, on Christmas 2006, from the National Security Service. The Deputy Minister
Vesko Markov, the General Secretary, Valentin Petrov and me were called, and I also
called the Head of Drugs Department. I knew that we would talk about the drugs traffic and
I decided that he could give the most detailed information. The information they received
from the report of the National Security Service was that a serious conflict will flare up
between Galevi brothers and Zlatko -The Baret. We had different information. The person,
Toni-Mamata, was an object of investigation in “Terror” division. He was controlled via
other investigational means. There was another piece of information related to the
elaboration of that person, that he was the mediator for arranging a meeting between the
Galevi brothers and Zlatko -The Baret.
At that moment according to information we had, we considered that the two of the
Galevi and Zlatko – The Baret would get in touch and solve things out. The Galeviʼ s
synthetic drugs would go in one direction and the heroin will come in another. Meanwhile
the two groups wouldnʼt be able to hamper each otherʼs doings because when they worked
individually, the stock was delivered in Turkey and the heroin was taken as exchange.
There was no money transfer, so it couldnʼt be monitored. From my point of view that was
one clever move.
Viewed form that angle, we shared our information and agreed on that - their
check–up to be submitted to us after the days off. We would prepare the information that
we had in order to make the comparison which information was more reliable because it
came from different sources. In the service they knew for sure where their information
came from, the source could be evaluated. Our information, which was obtained via
special investigation means, I consider as more reliable because it wasnʼt gathered from
under-cover-agents.
So, in regard to those check-ups the conversation between the Galevi brothers and
the Director of the National Investigational Service was carried out. That almost explains
all the conversations carried out in the his office. I was impressed by the fact that they
were so detailed and specific that I had the feeling as if someone was there with us,
having a cell phone turned on and transferring all the information about our discussion to
Galevi. That check-up has to be kept and if you can see it, you will be convinced that it is
very hard for one to transfer in direct speech with such exactness.
Later, also in relation to that elaboration, information was received that Alexey
Petrov and the Galevi brothers would meet at “Spartak” swimming pool. I donʼt know
where it is because my origin is not from Sofia and at least Aleksey Petrov will be at this
meeting.
16
He explained that it was, but I canʼt remember, it is possible that the Galevi brothers
explained it, that on that meeting would be mediator if you watched television the previous
night, in the reporting I canʼt remember, somehow or other we hadnʼt determined who that
mediator was. During the technical actions were lead, officers form “Fight against
Organized Crime” State Directorate and a team from External Observation took part
because the objects were conducted to place of the meeting. The purpose was eventually
to comment these conversations and in one moment the mediator, two jeeps came, the
Minister of the Interior got out of the jeep and all the services ran away, my subordinates
came to the department and said “We burnt out again, what we are going to do?”
Remarks between the deputies in the room.
Mr. Vanyo Tanov: Mr. Atanasov said to him that Head of the Ministry of the Exterior was
tired of my investigations and that the retirement wouldnʼt be late. And it wasnʼt, really.
Mrs. Tatyana Doncheva: OK, but what about this meeting at the “Spartak” pool? - I was
asking about Ivaylo.
Mr. Vanyo Tanov: I asked the General Secretary about Ivaylo and he said that Ivaylo was
appointed with an order from the Minister.
I am sure that about Ivaylo there is an information in National Security Service
because there was a serious conflict between general Chubanov and that Ivaylo we talk
about, and he was removed. I suppose that there was some serious information on it. I
personally know, by operative ways, that the person in question, Ivaylo, was meeting with
the Galevi brothers in investigation In National Police Service, because they were...
Mrs. Tatyana Doncheva: Wasnʼt Ivaylo an officer in “Fight against Organized Crime”
State Directorate in Dupnica?
Mr. Vanyo Tanov: I think that he was a Chief of Regional department.
Mrs. Tatyana Doncheva: So, he should have been in your service before becoming an
operative assistant to the General Secretary?
Mr. Vanyo Tanov: So, when I was moved from Rousse to Sofia, I donʼt remember exactly,
but I found that person Ivaylo as a counselor of the General Secretary. I donʼt know if he
was really but in the time I was there, he wasnʼt moved, I mean.
Mrs. Tatyana Doncheva: Donʼt you remember him as Chief of Rousse?
Mr. Vanyo Tanov: He is from Dupnica and if he had been moved, he should have been in
“Fight against Organized Crime” State Directorate, and the documents should have
passed through me and I should have known it. Obviously he had been moved from
Dupnica as a counselor, but not from … I just donʼt know if he was in National Service
before my coming to Sofia.
17
Mrs. Tatyana Doncheva: Around December 2006, before the Negotiations with the EU
were finished, did you have a meeting with the Interior Ministry leadership in order to
discuss the necessity to meet some particular persons from the organised crime, and to
negotiate with them, well, I mean, peacefully, particular steps or behavior that could, as it
were, help us to solve the problems with the numerous contract-murders, with the
appalling atrocities in the country, you know that in the last 2-3 reports these were the
main accusations. You are one of the three professional leaders. Do you have any
recollection about such a meeting?
Mr. Vanyo Tanov: I respond immediately. I havenʼt been to this kind of meetings and I
havenʼt been invited to such kind of meetings. Categorically.
Mrs. Tatyana Doncheva: So, you don't suggest that this meeting, youʼve just told us
about, at the swimming pool Spartak, between Alexey Petrov, the Minister and Galevi
brothers, had been organized with such intensions, do you?
Mr. Vanyo Tanov: This meeting canʼt be held with such intensions because the Minister of
Interior, I apologize that Mr. Petkanov is here, but the Minister of Interior, I donʼt mean you
because I mean the Minister of Interior, but the Minister is not the person who schedules
such kind of under-cover-agent contacts.
Instructions for field investigation postulate who can schedule and attend such
meetings and how they shall be organised. And if a person is being investigated, this
should be done according to a scheduled plan and well-defined goals. Yet, it is completely
impossible that the Minister of Interior acts as a field agent in such a plan, let alone attend
such kind of meetings.
Mrs. Tatyana Doncheva: Well but the Bulgarian accession to the EU is a top purpose and
I accept that in the name of this purpose a Minister of Interior can be a field agent, but I
mean in this case, we admit that some rules are broken, some technical rules. So in the
name of a successful accession, itʼs a noble cause.
Mr. Vanyo Tanov: I donʼt know, but if the Minister of Interior is in such a close relationship
with Galevi brothers that this could be decisive for the Bulgarian accession to the EU, then
...
Laughter in the room.
The Chairman Mincho Spasov: Please, try to refrain from commenting the issue, just
give us the facts, like, for example, was there such a report or not?
Mr. Vanyo Tanov: I have already told you this and now you want me to speculate or
guess what kind of relationship that was.
The Chairman Mincho Spasov: Any other questions, Mr. Kostov, you have the word.
Mr. Ivan Kostov: I donʼt know if I have understood everything correctly, letʼs make the
point and see if I got it right. You told that information is leaking out of the Ministry,
18
respectively, your service, your field work is being hindered, and you mentioned some
politicians, the word “politicians”, it was in plural, wasn't it? Is that right - politicians?
Mr. Vanyo Tanov: Yes.
Mr. Ivan Kostov: And how exactly did the politicians interfere? What did they do? Did they
enact laws? My next question is going to be not who, but how did they interefere? Itʼs
important for us to understand the mechanism of sabotaging your work.
Mr. Vanyo Tanov: Well, Iʼm telling you in details, for example, for the operation “The
Hotel” which was about the “Select” vodka affair, we had already bought certain illegal
amount under cover, we were about to launch the operation. To accomplish it, we had to
work in collaboration with the Customs and this had to to be done in the moment we knew
the spirits will be in place with false excise duty labels. We had a warrant issued by the
Customs, yet information leaked to the suspect, he called some politicians for support and
ten minutes later the search warrant for the warehouses was cancelled and the operation
was aborted.
Mr. Ivan Kostov: And now my next question is who, can you be so brave to say who, you
see all of us here, around the table, were these politicians ?
Mr. Vanyo Tanov: Read again the investigation report because some of them may be
sitting at this table right now, and I donʼt want…
Mr. Ivan Kostov: Great! So, the search warrant was cancelled in 10 minutes?
Mr. Vanyo Tanov: I categorically claim that it was, yes, unless the recorded messages
were destroyed. You must still be able to see them unless somebody sets fire to the
Ministry ...
Mr. Ivan Kostov: Who issued the warrant?
Mr. Vanyo Tanov: The Customs Director. Now I will tell you about the conversation but I
will not mention the person's name. After that he visited him at his home and called half of
his friends and said “did you see how fast I solved the problem. Somebody called
somebody and he, in turn, called someone else and the issue was settled and my warrant
became void in a minute.
The Chairman Mincho Spasov: But now, say, do you realise that if we say that we heard
everything about the Minister, but we spared the politician, it will be a little bit unjust.
Mr. Vanyo Tanov: OK, I will tell you. The conversation of this Pavlin is between him and ...
he called Dubov, asked to meet with him,10 minutes later he called his friends and said,
he was having thousands of conversations boasting how great he was, namely, it was as
simple as that, I went to Dubkata and he solved the problem, he called Velchev, Velchev
called someone else and my warrant was cancelled. But I donʼt know who Velchev is.
19
Mr. Ivan Kostov: We know one (called Velchev).
Mr. Vanyo Tanov: Maybe you know him. I suppose they must be in good relations with
the Customs Director since he could manage to "convince" the Director to cancel his own
search warrant, because before that I made thousands of attempts to cancel such
warrants but it didnít worked.
Mr. Dimitar Dubov: I have a question because my name was mentioned. Are there any
other people with the same last names - Dubov and Velchev, Iím asking you? Were the
family names Dubov and Velchev mentioned? Those are very serious things. I want a very
clear answer. Was the family name Dubov mentioned and the family name Velchev as
well?
Moreover, I think that my conversation was not even taped, he just says that two
people talked to each other about something but I think that in that conversation the family
names Dubov and Velchev were not even mentioned. So, this is a complete nonsense,
and I know this personally from him.
Mr. Ivan Kostov: What else can you do but deny?
Mr. Dimitar Dubov: You can not listen in my phone calls and you can not say whom I am
talking to. So, first, there is nothing like this.
Second, there are no family names mentioned.
Up to now I felt inclined to believe in that sort of things you are talking about, but
now, when I am listening to what you say, because I have been aware of this case for 6
months already, and I drew some conclusions, personally for me, just to know if these
facts had something to do with reality or not. And also if somebody is doing that to me and
who is doing it to me people in common or not, I am interested enough in it and I dare
claiming that everything Mr. Tanov says is absolutely not true and there are no family
names. I know for sure that there is no such thing. You know that in order to prove that
Dubov called Donchev, we need some real evidence, don't we?
Mr. Ivan Kostov: This is very weak defense which you are building up right now.
The Chairman Mincho Spasov: Colleagues, you can carry on this dispute when Mr.
Tanov is not here. Mr. Kostov, here we are asking questions to Mr. Tanov and it is not
appropriate to argue between each other.
Mr. Vanyo Tanov: A message was delivered to me and I claim that it was not Mr. Dubov
whose calls was listened in, but Pavlins', and what he has done before, for example, called
a number and look for all these numbers which he has called (against every number there
is a corresponding name). I am not saying your name was there.
The Chairman Mincho Spasov: Like I said before, we are not going to argue right now.
Do you have any other questions to Mr. Tanov ?
Mr. Dimitar Dubov: I have two questions to Mr. Tanov and please answer me only with
"Yes." or "No.".
Does he know a person, an agent, with a secret name ìArthurî and did he have any
contacts with him ñ either face-to-face or on the phone?
20
And the second one: In his work as Director of a Regional Department of the
Ministry of Interior and as Director of the Anti-Organized Crime Unit have you ever put any
suspects in the luggage compartment of a car?
21
Mr. Vanyo Tanov: Oh, no, I canʼt answer with “yes” or “no”. There is a person “Arthur”,
who has been investigated for 4 years during the period when I was Director. That person
is related to many other persons and many actions have been taken towards him in
relation to Andrey Lukanovʼs assassination. I can say this. So, “Arthur” has never been an
agent, at least not in the services I was responsible of. Iʼd rather arrested him and sent him
here, in Sofia arrest.
Concerning the second question – about my luggage compartment– I am not
informed about a case when people are put in the luggage compartment. There is no such
case.
The Chairman Mincho Spasov: Any other questions? Mr. Atanasov, please?
Mr. Atanas Atanasov: Thank you, Mr.Chairman. One of the spectacular cases in the
social environments in the last week or two is the case with an assistant director of “Fight
against Organized Crime” State Directorate – Mr. Ivanov. As far as I understand from
interviews and some other sources, he was appointed for an assistant director of “Fight
against Organized Crime” State Directorate after your leaving, right?
Mr. Vanyo Tanov: Thatʼs right.
Mr. Atanas Atanasov: All right, in different interviews you said that your present General
Secretary, then he was Director of the Police, proposed him to you for a deputy. Now,
please explain in deep details to the committee how this happened and was he the only
one suggested, i.e. did Mr. Valentin Petrov propose other appointments of director
positions in your subordinate service? This is my first question, after that I have another
one.
Mr. Vanyo Tanov: When I was Chief of the service, I canʼt remember whether it happened
during a regular meeting, or it was with the General Secretary or with Mr. Valentin Petrov,
but a third deputy director after Donka Dimitrovaʼ s retirement was discussed. Then Mr.
Valentin Petrov suggested the person in question, Mr. Ivan Ivanov. I told him that I didnʼt
know Mr. Ivan Ivanov. Also I told him that I would make inquiries on what kind of a person
he was and then I would take a decision whether to offer a proposal to him.
I came back to work, I called in the two deputies, Mr. Nikolov and Mr. Strandzev,
and asked them what they knew about that person. My vice, Mr. Nikolov, was in charge of
“Corruption” Department. He recalled that may be one of the heads of the department
eventually knew something; his name was Mr. Evgeni Todorov. We called him and he said
that this was the second person who was investigated there.I cannot claim this for sure,
though. The investigation wasnʼt reported, because of information leaking out, he was left
with the impression that Ivan Ivanov dictates that personʼs actions and at the end of the
day Ivan Ivanov was the one, whose orders were fulfilled. I also called in the Chief of
“Economic” Department, later there were a lot of conversations inside and outside the
service, I wanted to collect information what exactly he was. As a whole, the publication in
the media, that it was information so to say it and still that information wasnʼt specified by
the Chief of the “Economic” Department - those contentions belong to him but one way or
another the information in the media was that this person was not reliable and for that
reason
22
I declined to prepare a suggestion. I explained to Mr. Valentin Petrov that after all I had to
choose my deputy because the responsibility for that service was mine. I had to have the
right to choose my deputies. He said that there was no one else to be my deputy.
I prepared a suggestion for Mr. Dobri Dochev (was his name) and he was Head of
“People Traffic” department, I thought and I am still thinking now that he is a very loyal
person, and I wanted him to be my deputy. He returned my suggestion and said that would
not approve it. I called and asked him that if he had something in mind against the
appointment, he could send it to the Minister because after all, I said, “You decide the way
of a suggestion”. In my opinion it was correct to send it to the Minister, because I did it like
this, when it was demanded from me an officer to be shifted, I made a report with “first,
second, third”, what mine considerations were, arguments pro and con, and I left
everything in a written form. He said that only one suggestion was possible to pass.
About that case he had always asserted “you didnʼt tell me, that you would resign,
you didnʼt show any personnel policy” and so on. After all there was no appointment and I
am saying it again - the collection of information wasnʼt with the purpose that person to be
investigated. The person is working in the Police. I made a check-up because I wanted to
know if I could be in professional relationship with the person in question, if I could trust
and work in a team with him. And for that reason I donʼt accept the fact you claim now that
I am bringing any charges against him, because I didnʼt write what that person was.
Moreover, that information is popular. And second, I repeat it again that it was in concern
about him becoming my deputy.
As far as it goes to his appointment later on, I think that everybody else could do the
same, I even thought that having served in Rila, the present Chief of “Fight against
Organized Crime” State Directorate should know him very well.
The Chairman Mincho Spasov: Colleagues, I would like to ask you for shorter questions
and answers, please, because “Kuyovich” Commission, which consists of almost the same
people who attend here, is scheduled for 16:40. Mr. Atanasov, please!
Mr. Atanas Atanasov: I asked about Kalin Mihov, who was subsequently appointed.
Mr. Vanyo Tanov: After I gave my resignation, my two deputies were dismissed, the
investigation was done against Kalin Mihov and Vesko Velinov, the second one mentioned
in the discussion of Dragomir Raykovich case. Both Tony Strandzev and me for at a
certain moment it was very hard -I went to make a report to Valentin Petrov, and later he
said that there was no such conversation, so I had started to take one person with me,
otherwise I couldnʼt prove that we had a conversation.
Then, in the service information was received from the judge, who was a lawyer
before, and that judge had told (her husband, by the way, is working in “Fight against
Organized Crime” State Directorate, that an ex-client of hers came and asked her if there
was any jeopardy Kalin Mihov to be dismissed from the service because obviously he
walked and talked, and because they made a serious investment and in that situation, if he
was to be dismissed, they had to invest again.
This one was reported to Mr. Valentin Petrov and of course, we required submitting
the case (to take special spy devices actions). But on the following day, after submitting
the investigation, it was filed in “Inside Corruption” which had already been out of “Fight
against Organized Crime” State Directorate.
23
There was a case with a lady named Galya who was known to Minister Petkanov
and that lady was also well-known to an information clerk and we received information
about her and about another person, named George Pekin. That information was recorded
by an agent on his cell phone. That agent came to us at the service and we also entered
an investigation on them, which included installing technical devices in Galia and Pekinʼs
office but two days later at the bus station, a person was arrested, who tried to transfer
eight kilograms of kanabis, planned to be transported to by bus Rousse. The person
arrested, came out to be the son of the man who installed the technical devices at the
office. That is why it should be quite clear to all of you what has happened with this
investigation.
Mr. Atanas Atanassov: So, this means that Mr. Ivanov and Mr. Kalin Mihov were
appointed for deputy ministers. Though, it didnʼt become clear. Did you report back to the
Minister of the Interior on those cadre issues? I mean, did you report back to him up to the
moment when that conversation was held between you and the Head of the Police at that
time? For it was so, you were in contradiction with the Head of the Police – he offered you
something but you didnʼt agree with him.
Mr. Vanyo Tanov: Do you mean the information for the appointment of Ivan Ivanov?
Mr. Atanas Atanassov: The information for both of them.
Mr. Vanyo Tanov: Kalin Mihov was appointed after my nomination. By the way, during the
first month when I was in good terms with General Valentin Petrov, he offered me to
appointed Mr. Kalin Mihov for Head of the Drugs Unit. After that I took back my offer
because I had already had the information about Mihov.
I cannot understand your question about Mr. Ivan Ivanov and Mr. Kalin Mihov. What
about after that? I have nothing to do with this after that.
Mr. Atanas Atanassov: I am asking you if the Minister was informed for those persons.
Because after all, he nominated them for deputy ministers later on.
Mr. Vanyo Tanov: In my opinion this could not happened. In the end the Minister of the
Interior had signed the documents for nomination. I do not know If Valyo Petrov has
informed the Minister. If he has informed him, the procedure is the following - the deputy
minister was offered by the Head of the Service and if Valentin Petrov agreed with him, the
Minister of the Interior approved that nomination according to new law. That means that
three persons were included in the case.
Chairman Mincho Spasov: Did you inform the Minister of the Interior on the case about
Ivanov and Mihov?
Mr. Vanyo Tanov: I donʼt remember if I informed the Minister of the Interior but there was
a conversation, in which I told him that I would not make a suggestion for the nomination of
Ivan Ivanov. But those were spoken conversations.
Chairman Mincho Spasov: Is there another question?
24
Mr. Dimitar Abadzhiev: In this connection I have one question with your permission. One
or two hours ago from the Ministry of the Interior was announced, I suppose by the
Minister, that Iliya Iliev was arrested in connection with the case of Mr. Ivan Ivanov. In
concern to this, what was the relationship between Mr. Iliya Iliev and Mr. Ivan Ivanov? Did
Iliya Iliev also insist on you nominating Ivan Ivanov? What is the relation between them?
Mr. Vanyo Tanov: Since my retirement I have had one conversation with General Iliya
Iliev. I called him when I found out from the mass media that my deputy ministers were
removed from office and asked him about the reasons for the dismission of Toni
Strandzhev from the position of deputy-minister and the nomination of Ivan Ivanov? Then
he told me that he strongly opposed to that dismission. And he also told me that according
to new law he had no rights. He told me that he had not signed any offered.
I think that the reason for the dismission of the person in the question, Toni
Strandzhev, was that long list with all the investigations. Another official from “Fight against
Organized Crime” State Directorate had come to the person who lead the case in Peshtera
and forewarned him that the man of the guard came to him, i. e. the official and told him
that they knew where Toni lived, where his wife worked, where his children were, etc. and
that the things against him would be very cruel.
This boy came to me with Mr. Toni Strandzhev and they were made to write a report
on that case. I asked Toni the report not to come out of his name because that official from
Peshtera told Toni that Valentin Petrov knew for the report in question; however, he wasnʼt
sure whether it was true or not. And where did he thought he would go by rising against
Valentin Petrov?
I asked Toni Strandzhev to make a summarized verification on all investigations
where Valentin Petrov was involved and after that to be signed by me. I sent that
verification to the General Secretary because Valentin Petrov was not subordinated to him,
and because if I sent it to the Minister of the Interior, the verification could not be entered in
the incoming register. That is why I sent it to the General Secretary.
Later Mr. Toni Strandzhev was framed to take back the report. However, he didnʼt
agree. I know that after that the report was returned to the service. The officials were
called in on all the cases at the service in Veso Petrovʼs presence. The investigations were
given to them. I donʼt know what has happened but I know that the guy, who made the
verification, was urged to change the second page of verification. And the guy admitted it.
He said: “Then the director made me a favour – he saved me not to be on the top and in
the current situation everything is a big burden to me and that is why I want to admit my
guilt. I change the verification.”.
Chairman Mincho Spasov: Go ahead.
Mr. Atanas Atanassov: Now, you in your presentation you said that a complete
description to all investigations was made in the service in three copies. Which officials
have received this investigation reports? This is my first questions. And my second
question is connected to this last investigation.
25
Could you remember on how many investigations conversations between objects
and Mr. Valentin Petrov were caught out? Thank you.
Mr. Vanyo Tanov: So, there were caught out actions that cannot be proved but we can
make conclusions from them. For instance, in the case of Peshtera but I am not sure in
which investigation exactly, conversations were realized between objects in Turkey. Those
were people who owned printing houses there and there were offered five millions alcohol
excise labels and 2,5 millions cigarette excise labels. The production was completed and
the information proceeded in a logical succession that it had already happened.
When all those things were cleared, we came to an agreement with our Turkish
colleagues which had come to Bulgaria on a previous occasion, that we would send on a
mission our officers to make a controlled delivery from Turkey to Bulgaria in order to keep
under observation who would receive those labels.
Unfortunately, I cannot send our officers on missions because I have no such rights.
They could be offered by me then Mr. Valentin Petrov had to agree and finally the General
Secretary confirmed the mission. When inquiries were made about what would those
people do in Turkey and what was everything about , that particular investigation and
information were finished without logical consequences. Even though my colleagues had
been sent on the mission to Turkey, it failed because the people who had to transport
those labels to Bulgaria, didnʼt show up. This proves indirectly once again that after the
verification like in many other cases, the results are negative.
Mr. Atanas Atanassov: How many copies were made of the list with all these persons in
it?
Mr. Vanyo Tanov: We made four copies of that list with investigations. The first copy is at
the Service. The other 3 copies were sent to the Minister, the General Secretary - at that
time gen. Iliev and one copy was given to Mr. Valentin Petrov.
The paradox was that when I came back from Rousse on Sunday afternoon, I went
to the Service as always about 3 oʼclock. I received the report bulletin on which I would
report back at the operative meeting on Monday. The report was in an envelope, sealed,
stamped with wax but the verification was left on the duty officerʼs desk. For the reason
that the duty officer receives the last number from open and secret cases register before
the end of the work day on Fridays. And if it happened urgently to make an important
document, we could use the next number. That is why that verification was left freely on
the duty officer.
Chairman Mincho Spassov: Mr. Donchev.
Mr. Vladimir Donchev: Mr. Tanov , do you remember any cases when you have listened
in on operative interesting people for the Service to come across to Minister Rumen
Petkov? Are there such cases?
Mr. Vanyo Tanov: I have not received any messages containing direct conversations
between Minister Petkov and other objects. All the messages from the operative operation
were received by the field investigator.
26
If he decides to report this information to the field investigator but I am sure that if there are
such information he will never receive it.
Chairman Mincho Spasov: Are there any other questions? Mrs. Masseva, please.
Mrs Maseva: Could you make it clear to us because it is very intriguing - what was the
investigation where you came across the nickname “The Lighter” ? And one shorter
question.
Mister Vanyo Tanov: So, I didnʼt remember how actually the nickname was but the
investigation was connected to the Head of the Customs at Gorublyane. Iʼ m sorry but
donʼt remember their names.
We first arrested the Head of the Gorublyane Customs because she made 1500
levs of a pick up, then following 3000 levs.
Mrs. Eliana Masseva: And one more questions to you, Mr. Tanov? Are you afraid of the
fact that you deliver public information? Do you have some reasonable doubts that you can
be pursued and repressed because of that condition?
Mr. Vanyo Tanov: I have chosen my way and I will lie to you if I say that Iʼ m not afraid.
But my family is familiar with this, they know my character and I will not step back till the
end.
Chairman Mincho Spasov: Do you have any other questions?
Mrs Tatyana Doncheva: Did you understand after all for whom was made the inquiry with
the names, the treatments and the nicknames?
Mr. Vanyo Tanov: I told you that it was made in 4 copies. The first copy was given to the
minister, the second one was given to the general Secretary and the third copy was given
to Mr. Valentin Petrov.
I will tell you that a businessman from Rousse called me when I travelled back to
Sofia from Rousse on Sunday. He asked me if I came to Sofia to make investigation them.
That means that only for the weekend, from Saturday to Sunday, information had already
leaked out. However, I didnʼt have any idea about it while traveling back to Sofia. So I
asked Valentin Petrov if there was such inquiry because till that moment I didnʼt know
about it. And that was the reason for the serious scandal between us. I asked him what
was so necessary in the day off to prompt Mrs. Dimitrova, she was a loyal official indeed,
Mrs. Georgieva, I apologize, to tell something to the leadership no matter if it was true or
not?
Mr. Vladimir Donchev: Which management do you suspect Mrs. Georgievaʼs level of
competence to contact with - the professional or the political one?
Mr Vanyo Tanov: I suppose that it was an order of the Minister of the Interior or of
Valentin Petrov.
I have always thought it was made by the order of Valentin Petrov
27
because of the serious scandal, that arose between us. For instance, it an inquiry could be
done only with a nickname, a short annotation, and an investigation.
Chairman Mincho Spassov: Yes, you told this at the beginning. We are grateful to
general Tanov.
Colleagues, Iʼm asking you to stay for a short summary. Only the members of the
committee will discuss our further actions. The other colleagues can stay too if they want
to listen to the final discussion.
The colleague Bulgarinov is speaking.
Mr. Borislav Bulgarinov: Dear colleagues, I am applying to the colleagues from the
governing coalition, too. We have received enough materials and enough questions
without answer, and it probably it happened mostly because of Mr. Ilievʼs absence.
However, in order to find the answers to those questions, for as we know Ivaylo
Prodanov received a more specific kind of information and National Security State Agency
didnʼt answer to them, I think it is necessary to hear to the Minister of the Interior, having
already heard some of the facts.
And in this connection I make one proposal to have a hearing to Minister of the
Interior tomorrow in afternoon or on Friday in the break. So we will have the answers to all
questions, exactly what we need, from the persons who can give us these answers, not
from the mass media first.
Thank you. I want to vote this now.
Chairman Mincho Spassov: Please, formulate your exact questions to the Minister
because we will ask him about the things that Mr. Tanov said. Shall we give him a
shorthand record? That is why I am asking you Mr. Bulgarinov to formulate your proposal
in this direction. I propose the date of the hearing to be as soon as possible, for example
tomorrow at 14.30. That is why I am asking you to cancel all your appointments for
tomorrow.
I am giving the word of Mr. Bulgarinov to formulate his questions.
Mr. Borislav Bulgarinov: I have formulated several groups of questions. The first one is
that we have no answer to the following question - has Ivaylo Prodanov received classified
information? The second group concerns the letters from National Security State Agency.
These questions have to be answered by the Minister. And the last one is todayʼs hearing
to Mr. Tanov.
Chairman Mincho Spassov: Colleagues, the issue is very serious and we have to react
quickly. In my opinion this written statement has to be sent to the Prosecutorʼs Office in
order to check the facts stated here.. I am asking you not to publicize the text of the letters
and the concrete names and in this way to check the work of the investigators. My opinion
is to send this written statement to the Prosecutorʼs Office and I am proposing to vote it. I
propose to vote Mr. Bulgarinovʼs proposal.
28
I am giving the word to Mr. Atanassov for another proposal.
Mr. Atanas Atanassov: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. At the end of the ends I think that
every circumstance can be checked. Because everybody can express subjective opinion
and everybody is responsible for doing it, of course. However, I would like to say a few
things because I think that I know a little bit more but I donʼt want some speculations to
start with this. Because I do not do my work for myself. I am trying to do something for our
country because the people outside say that we donʼt have a country. In this connection
first let we estimate the position of every person, whom we are talking about, and the
institution represented by him/her.
So, I consider that is not necessary to listen to the Minister of the Interior. This is my
opinion but it will be voted because the Minister of the Interior is a party concerned here.
Apart from this, he has to organize his defence for another institution, not to hear to his
version here and waste our time with this.
I join to the statement that the shorthand record has to be sent to the General
Prosecutor and then he has to undertake the corresponding actions needed in relation to
what was said and discussed that day. And it has to be done at this very moment, Mr.
Chairman. I would say that it is very harmful when the parties concerned, as is the Minister
of the Interior, receives the information for the cases which concerns him/her. We can
have as an example the affair with Ivan Ivanov. Thereby public manipulations and other
similar stories start.
And the same is the affair with the Galevi brothers. He came out and talked on the
radio on Monday that he had met them because someone informed him about receiving
the letter here, I am not saying whom he/she was. Therefore, in my opinion the right thing
to do is this shorthand record to be transcribed on paper by the technical staff and after
that it has to be sent to the General Prosecutor. I propose this to be voted. The hearing to
the Minister of the Interior makes no sense because most of us are lawyers and we know
what the things are. This is my proposal, thank you.
Chairman Mincho Spassov: Mr Georgiev
Mr. Georgi Georgiev: I will start backwards. I mean when everything is transcribed on
paper it has to be sent to National Security State Agency too. Because National Security
State Agency will find the right way in the situation. That was the reason why we made
National Security State Agency. And the next thing is that I think that it is really not
necessary the Minister of the Interior to be heard to. Because he will tell us the same
things that he said in all TV programmes he was invited to take part in.
Chairman Mincho Spassov: Colleagues, let me take a stand on this issue. I think that
when our Committee starts working on such an investigation, it is necessary the Minister
of the Interior to be heard to as well..
29
It is admissible according to the Statute for the work of National Assembly to make such
hearings. We have been in this process for 2-3 weeks. That is why it would be just and
complied to the law to give the Minister this chance. Here you are.
Mr. Kamen Kostadinov: Mister Chairman, there are two formal proposals – the first one
is the Minister to be heard to and the second one is not to have this hearing. My proposal
is to vote them and after the decision of the Committee, we will discuss our further actions.
Chairman Mincho Spassov: Do you have any other proposals?
Mrs. Eliana Masseva: I have only one retort about the Minister of the Interior. We have
asked the Minister for the Galevi brothers at the first hearing to the report on the synthetic
drugs and then he denied. So, it is not necessary to come back to this issue.
Chairman Mincho Spassov: I put under vote Mr. Bulgarinovʼs proposal for hearing to the
Minister of the Interior tomorrow at 15.00 oʼclock on a special meeting to give us the
answers in the light of todayʼs report and the letter received from the State Agency. The
ones who agree with this may vote. Who is content with this, please letʼs vote. “16” For.
Against? Nobody. Abstain from voting? Eight members.
I put under vote my proposal for sending the report to the Prosecutorʼs Office. All members
are For. Against? Nobody. Abstain from voting? Nobody.
I put under vote Mr. Georgievʼs proposal for sending the report to National Security State
Agency. Mr. Georgiev has just retracted his proposal.
Colleagues, is there consensus to call the meeting tomorrow at 15.00 oʼclock?
All members gave their consent to the proposal. I declare the meeting at 17.10 oʼclock
The meeting was declared at 17.10 oʼclock.
Chairman of the
Internal Security and Public Order Committee
Mincho Spassov:
Signature

David Guyatt
12-27-2010, 11:44 AM
Not to belittle this, but it would be good to have similar studies focused on major western nations, say the US.

Oh yes, that's right, Prof. Peter Dale Scott (http://www.peterdalescott.net/)has covered that in his books on Deep Politics - after which our forum is named.

Bravo Peter!