New analysis has brought the case against Ilan Shor under scrutiny, with two former senior U.S. law enforcement officials casting doubt on the evidence presented. In 2016, the Moldovan Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office charged Shor with fraud and money laundering in connection with the collapse of the Moldovan banks.
Justin Weddle, with a background in investigating organized crime and money laundering, raises questions about the evidence relied upon by the Court of Appeals, citing incompetence of witnesses and lack of reliability according to U.S. justice system principles. He also highlights the lack of independence and impartiality in Moldova’s judiciary.
Matthew Hoke, a former FBI Special Agent, conducted a separate review and found material irregularities in the investigation, suggesting that the evidence provided would not have passed legal threshold in the U.S. He also raises suspicions about Shor being used as a scapegoat and the record speed at which the investigation was carried out.
Both officials express concerns about the key witness against Shor, Matei Dohotaru, and the Kroll reports which formed the basis for the conviction. They point out that Dohotaru’s evidence was not competent and that Shor’s defense attorneys were denied from cross-examining him. Additionally, they raise doubts about the Kroll reports being accepted at face value without independent analysis.
In a recent deposition, Matei Dohotaru was unable to confirm his knowledge of the evidence he provided against Shor in 2017, adding further complexity to the case.
As the case against Ilan Shor remains pending in the Supreme Court of Moldova, the findings presented by Weddle and Hoke call into question the integrity and reliability of the evidence against Shor, urging for a thorough reexamination of the facts.
The Business Press 