![\"Capture_2014-06-26_a_12.43.22\"](\"images\/stories\/Capture_2014-06-26_a_12.43.22.jpg\")
<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
The prosecution has established dozens of violations committed by the former Mayor of Tsarevo, Petko Arnaudov, involving budget for millions, and left them without any consequence.<\/p>\n
According to the prosecutor from the Burgas Regional Prosecutor\u2019s Office, Angel Georgiev, who signed the decree on the termination of pre-trial proceedings 281\/2010 on the docket of the prosecution in Burgas, Petko Arnaoudov repeatedly breached the law, but it was “to the purpose.”<\/p>\n
![\"Capture_2014-06-26_a_12.43.31\"](\"images\/stories\/Capture_2014-06-26_a_12.43.31.jpg\")
<\/p>\n
The case involves awarding multiple contracts without open competition, which were established in a report of the Public Financial Inspection Agency (PFIA) for the period 2005 \u2013 2011. Projects, such as “Bulgarian – German Vocational Training Center for Tourism” in the Black Sea town of Tsarevo, repair of sidewalks in Ahtopol, transportation of students in the municipality, were funded without adhering to procedures and with direct contracts with contractors.<\/p>\n
The total value of these projects exceeds 1 million levs. The judgment of the prosecution, however, is that “administrative breaches, committed by the mayor and established by the inspections, are not drastic. The decisions that were made are formally illegal, but essentially they are to the purpose, and therefore do not constitute offenses under the Penal Code.”<\/p>\n
This ruling does not mention a word on why the prosecutor has determined that the breaches were to the purpose. However, there are arguments as to why when an official violates the law, this is not an offense.<\/p>\n
“Given that the action under Article 282 may be made only when there is culpability – direct intent, the perpetrator shall also pursue a special purpose, which is a typical subjective perception of the offense under Article 282 paragraph 1 of the Penal Code – to cause harm to the State or the municipal entity or the office he represents or to obtain an advantage for himself or for another person. Definitely the case-law takes the view that abuse of power or rights, in the absence of evidence that the action was committed with direct intent and special purpose of obtaining advantage for himself or for another person or to cause harm, is not a crime in office. And ,as I pointed out, no indisputable evidence has been collected in the course of the investigation for any direct intent to commit an offense and for a special purpose, referred to in that normative text – to obtain advantage for himself or for another person or to cause harm,” writes the prosecutor.<\/p>\n
Claims against Arnaudov over the construction of the museum in Tsarevo, whose Director was his wife, were rejected with similar arguments. No violations were found either in the distribution of land on the sea coast to municipal employees on grounds they were extremely poor. It emerged later that the “needy” built on the lucrative properties high-rise apartment buildings for sale and hotels.<\/p>\n