Преписвал ли е началникът на Военна академия – всеки сам си преценя

Внимание: Тук, както винаги, аз привеждам само и единствено факти. И то мъничка част от тези факти - за да се очертаят контурите и да се придобие известна представа (ако някой се интересува от това, разбира се).
Единствено и само факти, тълкуването може да си го направи всеки.
Независимо от гневната реакция по мой адрес на сайта на любимата ми Военна академия (аз недоумявам защо един човек, та било то и началникът на Военна академия, използва сайта на Военна академия за да ми отправя лични нападки в лично качество), ще кажа отново и отново - аз работя с документи.
Вижте какво привеждам и сами си правете изводите съществува ли преписване или не (а иначе, както се казва, при интерес от публиката ще следва и продължение).
Да започнем със следното.

Имаме две научни публикации.
Първата публикация (Публикация I) е „Achieved Results of the Bulgarian Prosecutor’s Office in the Prosecution and Investigation of Crimes of Corruption“, https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3676374, Written: September 4, 2020, Posted: 7 Oct 2020
Публикация I e от
проф. Венелин Терзиев (Военна академия, София),
Марин Георгиев, Университетска болница „Канев“ в Русе и
Стефчо Банков, Национален военен университет, Велико Търново.

Публикация II е от
отново проф. Венелин Терзиев (Военна академия, София, но вече с други двама съавтори –
Иван Иванов, Университетска болница „Канев, Русе и
началникът на Военна академия ген. д-р Груди Ангелов.
Тя е „PROSECUTOR’S OFFICE OF THE REPUBLIC OF BULGARIA: INVESTIGATED CORRUPTION CRIMES AND COUNTERACTING CORRUPTION“, 69-th International Scientific Conference on Economic and Social Development – "Sustainability and Post Covid World" – Dubai, 03 June, 2021

По-долу се показва, че в Публикация II, съавтор на която е началникът на Военна академия, има текстове, преписани от Публикация I, в която той не е съавтор.
Разбира се, че някой ще каже – ами нали двете публикации имат и един общ съавтор – проф. Венелин Терзиев!?
Да, така е, с малкото уточнение, че Венелин Терзиев е представен като работещ във Военна академия, т.е. като подчинен на началника на Военна академия.
Преди да дам някои от преписаните текстове, ще кажа за сетен път с риск да стана досаден – привеждам само факти.
Аз лично доста преди тези случаи съм предупредил началника на Военна академия да внимава при сътрудничеството с някои хора, обичащи да преписват от чужди, в това число едно към едно от мои публикации, за да не си лепне някой ден, предоверявайки им се, петно на плагиат.

И ако примерите за съвпадения (вкл. с правописните грешки) между съдържанието на Публикация I и Публикация II (обърнете внимание – съвпада резюмето на двете публикации!) не са достатъчни (макар че са необходими), то преминете директно към сравняването на Публикация II с Публикация III!

Но най-напред за Публикации I и II.

В Публикация I (публикацията е от 2020 г и в нея началникът на Военна академия НЕ Е съавтор), например, четем:
The Bulgarian Prosecutor's Office shall ensure that legality is observed by bringing charges against criminal suspects and supporting the charges in indictable cases; overseeing the enforcement of penalties and other measures of compulsion; taking action for the rescision of all unlawful acts and for restoration in urgent cases of unwarrantedly exercised right, contested also by another; taking part in civil and administrative suits whenever required to do so by law.
The main activity of the Bulgarian Prosecutor's Office, prosecuting and bringing charges against specific individuals, is unthinkable without the operational capacity of the executive bodies. In exercising its powers of detecting a specific criminal activity, it is necessary to establish a number of data, which will then be collected as evidence and verified in the course of criminal proceedings. This activity is worth much by detecting crimes of corruption.
One of the most significant results of the recent years reforms, carried out in the field of anticorruption, is the transfer of high level corruption cases from the territorial district courts and prosecutor`s offices, respectively Sofia City Court and Sofia City Prosecutor`s Office (having in mind their special competence under Art. 35, para 3 of the Criminal Procedure Code) to the Specialized Criminal Court and the Specialized Prosecutor`s Office as.

В Публикация II (публикацията е от 2021 г. и в нея началникът на Военна академия вече Е съавтор) четем:
The Bulgarian Prosecutor's Office shall ensure that legality is observed by bringing charges against criminal suspects and supporting the charges in indictable cases; overseeing the enforcement of penalties and other measures of compulsion; taking action for the rescision of all unlawful acts and for restoration in urgent cases of unwarrantedly exercised right, contested also by another; taking part in civil and administrative suits whenever required to do so by law.
The main activity of the Bulgarian Prosecutor's Office, prosecuting and bringing charges against specific individuals, is unthinkable without the operational capacity of the executive bodies. In exercising its powers of detecting a specific criminal activity, it is necessary to establish a number of data, which will then be collected as evidence and verified in the course of criminal proceedings. This activity is worth much by detecting crimes of corruption.
One of the most significant results of the reforms carried out in recent years in the field of anticorruption is the transfer of corruption cases under the so-called “high level corruption” by the territorial district courts and prosecutor's offices, respectively the Sofia City Court and the Sofia City Prosecutor's Office / having in mind their special competence according to Art.35, para 3 of the PPC /, in the Specialized Criminal Court and the Specialized Prosecutor's Office.

Сега оставяме Публикация I и разглеждаме трета публикация (Публикация III). Нека ги сравним. В цитираните обширни пасажи няма да откриете разлики (освен в някоя запетая или точка и запетая).

Публикация III:
PROSECUTOR'S OFFICE OF THE REPUBLIC OF BULGARIA PROSECUTOR GENERAL № 2851/2020 г. - PG Sofia, 21.09.2020
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/…/211818/answers-libe-1.pdf
Вижте как е подписан този документ!:
FOR THE PROSECUTOR GENERAL: /SIGNATURE/ (according to order № RD - 05 - 2932 from 14.09.2020 of the Prosecutor General)
DANIELA MASHEVA DEPUTY PROSECUTOR GENERAL AT THE SUPREME CASSATION PROSECUTOR'S OFFICE

В Публикация III (тя е от 2020 г. и е официален документ, подписан за Главния прокурор от негова заместничка) четем:
This is how the recommendation made in the Independent Analysis of the Structural and Functional Model of the Prosecutor's Office and its Independence, carried out by the EU Technical Support Office in 2016, was implemented, namely: to transfer corruption cases to the Specialized Criminal Court, “where there is a more constructive interaction between prosecutors and judges and less formalism.
It is generally accepted in the legal community in our country that the very formalistic Criminal Procedure Code needs to be amended (and even revised), while the Criminal Code of 1968. it needs a complete revision in order to be able to fully reflect the current phenomena and trends in criminal activity.22
This observation is shared as a finding in the report on the Independent analysis of the model of the prosecution in 2016, highlighting a number of other shortcomings of the current substantive and procedural criminal law, which hinder not only the detection of corrpution offences but also conventional crime generally.
For example, the results of "preliminary inspections", in cases where the signal submitted by a particular citizen or organization does not contain sufficient evidence of a crime, have no procedural value in the course of criminal proceedings. Therefore, it is necessary to repeat all these preliminary actions in the course of the criminal proceedings, but performed through the means of proof provided for in the Criminal Procedure Code and in compliance with the procedural guarantees provided in it, which in many cases are unnecessarily formalistic. This greatly complicates the procedural activity in terms of the amount of evidence gathered in the course of the investigation, due to which the two-month investigation period provided by law (although with the option to be extended several times), seems unrealistic.
Another example of increased formalism in terms of procedural rules is the lack of possibility for public statements of guilt expressed by a particular person to have probative value in court. There is also an opinion and recommendation, again by the experts who have carried out the independent analysis of the structural and functional model of the prosecution, for a comprehensive review of the principle of internal conviction decision-making by prosecutors, which they believe should be amended, especially in the part for the prosecution. It should be noted here that in case the current legal situation remains unchanged, it is very likely that general organizational methodological measures will be taken and the relevant instruction will be issued, which will give clear guidelines on the application and interpretation of Art. 14 of the CPC.
Another extremely serious problem before law enforcement, related to the formalism of the Bulgarian criminal process, is the content of the indictment, which is the final prosecutorial act by which the case is submitted for consideration in the trial phase of the criminal process. On this issue, some measures have been taken at the legislative level to simplify it, but the above-mentioned long-standing practice continues, its content to be so detailed in fact that it is as if the prosecutor who prepared it was a witness - an eyewitness to the crime.
This situation is a function of the excessive guarantees that the Criminal Procedure Code imposes on the right to defense of the defendant. We fully support the recommendation set out in the Independent Analysis of the Structural and Functional Model of the Prosecutor 's Office that the content of the indictment should contain in the shortest and most concise form possible the circumstances related to the crime26, as well as a serious review of the so-called substantial procedural violations. We believe that the current provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code on indictments not only create problems for the effectiveness of prosecutors, but also create problems for the effectiveness of the entire criminal justice system. Compared to other EU member states, the indictments in our country require unnecessary detail. For the sake of completeness, it should be noted that even in cases with a high degree of public interest (which should not be subject to unnecessary delays), it is still common practice for judges to return cases to prosecutors due to minor omissions in the preparation of the indictment, which is quite possible to be removed in the trial phase of the process.
Here we should also mention some positive legislative changes that have facilitated the trial phase of the process. For example, it is no longer necessary to read the indictment unnecessarily before the court, a copy of which the defendant has available before the trial and the content of which he was obliged to familiarize himself with. Instead, an obligation was introduced for the prosecutor to present to the court a summary of the facts of the indictment, which determine the criminal liability of the particular defendant. Thus, another of the recommendations of the experts from the Independent Analysis was implemented. There are also a number of problems with the Criminal Code, especially with regard to the fight against corruption. And now in our criminal law the provocation to bribe continues to be criminalized.
Taking into account the specific objectives that the "parties" pursue in the granting and receiving of the respective benefit, we believe that this text of the Criminal Code completely undermines the course of almost any criminal proceedings with such an object of investigation. The provision itself was adopted in 2000, in a historical period accompanied by numerous corrupt practices, mostly related to the privatization of state property, and high levels of corruption risk. That is why we find that if political will to tackle corruption is in fact to be demonstrated, then a mandatory step in this direction is the decriminalization of the provocation to bribe. We also find that the state should apply a comprehensive and differentiated approach to the individualization of the punishment of persons who have committed corrpution offences. In this regard, legislative changes are needed to ensure the wider use of accomplices and other participating defendants (through agreements, if necessary) against the person who committed the corrpution offense in question (giving them the opportunity to be prosecuted first or granted immunity).
Of course, we also take into account the need to fully guarantee the protection of their physical integrity, given the risks that arise as a result of their assistance to law enforcement agencies. In this sense, it is one of the recommendations of the Independent Analysis. 28 The meaning of Art. 282 of the Criminal Code (the main composition of the official crime) should be rethought as the breach or abuse of office does not apply to company officials, and corruption crimes need to cover the private sector as well. In the same way, we believe that it makes sense to adopt provisions that criminalize the commission of the criminal act itself, without the need to prove any harm caused by the breach of public procurement rules. 29 It is necessary a legislative mechanism to be introduced according to which confiscated assests acquired in a criminal way should be "reinvested" for the purposes of criminal proceedings or to compensate the victims of the crime.30 Such a mechanism exists in part, with regard to citizens and legal entities, through the figure of the "civil applicant", but in cases of corrpution offenses, for example, there is no mechanism by which the subject of the crime - the material asset taken from the state to be used for the purposes of an forthcoming criminal proceeding.

В Публикация II (това е въпросната публикация, в която началникът на Военна академия е съавтор) четем:
This implements the recommendation made in the Independent Analysis of the Structural and Functional Model of the Prosecutor's Office and its Independence, carried out by the EU Technical Support Office in 2016, namely: to transfer corruption cases to the Specialized Criminal Court, “where there is a more constructive interaction between prosecutors and judges and less formalism” (2016)
It is generally accepted in the legal community in our country that the very formalistic Criminal Procedure Code needs to be amended / and even revised /, while the Criminal Code of 1968 needs a comprehensive review in order to be able to fully reflect current phenomena and trends in criminal activity.
This opinion is shared as a finding in the report on the Independent Analysis of the Prosecution Model in 2016, highlighting a number of other shortcomings of the current substantive and procedural criminal law, which hinder not only the detection of corruption crimes, but also conventional crime in general
For example, the results of "preliminary checks", in cases where the signal submitted by a particular citizen or organization does not contain sufficient evidence of a crime, have no procedural value in the course of criminal proceedings. Therefore, it is necessary to repeat all these preliminary actions in the course of the criminal proceedings, but performed through the means of proof provided for in the Criminal Procedure Code and in compliance with the procedural guarantees provided in it, which in many cases are unnecessarily formalistic. This greatly complicates the procedural activity in terms of the amount of evidence gathered in the course of the investigation, due to which the two-month period for investigation provided by law (although with the option to be extended many times), seems unrealistic.
Another example of increased formalism in terms of procedural rules is the lack of possibility for public statements of guilt expressed by a particular person to have probative value in court. There is also an opinion and recommendation, again by the experts who carried out the independent analysis of the structural and functional model of the Prosecution, for a comprehensive review of the principle of decision-making by prosecutors in their inner conviction, which they believe should be amended, especially in the part for the Prosecution.
Another extremely serious problem for the law enforcement, related to formalism of Bulgarian criminal process, is the content of the indictment, which is the final prosecutorial act by which the case is submitted for consideration in the court phase of the criminal process.
In this regard, some measures have been taken at the legislative level to simplify it, but the long-standing practice continues with the purpose for its content to be so detailed in fact as if the prosecutor who prepared it has been a witness - an eyewitness to the crime. This situation is a function of the excessive guarantees that the Criminal Procedure Code imposes on the right to defense of the accused. The recommendation set out in the Independent Analysis of the Structural and Functional Model of the Prosecutor's Office that the content of the indictment should contain in the possible shortest and most concise form the circumstances related to the crime, as well as a serious review of the so-called substantial procedural violations. The current provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code, regarding the indictments, not only create problems for the effectiveness of prosecutors but also create problems for the efficiency of the whole system of criminal justice. Compared to other EU member states, the indictments in our country require unnecessary level of detail. For the sake of precision in this regard, it should be noted that even in cases of high public interest (which should not be subject to unnecessary delays) it is common practice for judges to return cases to prosecutors due to minor omissions in the preparation of the indictment (2016), which is quite possible to be removed in the trial phase of the process.
There are some positive legislative changes that have facilitated the trial phase of the process. For example, it is no longer necessary to read the indictment unnecessarily before the court, a copy of which the accused has available before the trial and the content of which he was obliged to acquaint himself with. Instead, an obligation has been introduced for the prosecutor to present to the court a summary of the facts of the indictment, which determine the criminal liability of the particular defendant
This is how another of the recommendations of the experts from the Independent Analysis was implemented. A number of issues can be defined with regard to the Criminal Code, especially in connection with the fight against corruption. And currently in our criminal law the provocation to bribe continues to be criminalized.
Taking into account the specific objectives that the "parties" pursue in granting and accepting the relevant benefit, this text of the Penal Code completely “undermines” the course of almost any criminal proceedings with such an object of investigation. The provision itself was adopted in 2000, in a historical period accompanied by numerous corrupt practices, mostly related to the processes of privatization of state property, and high levels of corruption risk. The state should implement a complex and differentiated approach in the individualization of the punishment of persons who have committed corruption offences. In this regard, legislative changes are needed to ensure the wider use of accomplices and other participating defendants (through agreements, if necessary) against the person committed the corruption offense (giving them the opportunity to be prosecuted first or granted immunity).
The need to fully guarantee the protection of their physical integrity, given the risks that arise as a result of their assistance to law enforcement authorities is also taken into consideration. In this sense is one of the recommendations of the Independent Analysis (2016). It is necessary to redеfine the meaning of Art. 282 of the Penal Code / the main composition of the official crime /, as the violation or abuse of official position does not apply to officials in companies, and the corruption crimes should refer to the private sector as well. There is some point in adopting provisions that criminalize the commission of the criminal offence itself, without the need to prove any harm caused by the breach of the public procurement rules (2016). It is necessary to introduce a legislative mechanism according to which confiscated property acquired in a criminal way should be “reinvested” for the purposes of criminal proceedings or to compensate the victims (2016). of the crime. Such a mechanism is partially available, with regard to citizens and legal entities, through the figure of the "civil plaintiff", but in cases of corruption offenses, for example, there is no mechanism by which the subject of the crime - the confiscated benefit of material nature in favor of the state, to be used for the purposes of forthcoming criminal proceedings.
  
  07.01.2022 г.

Отговор

Съдържанието на това поле е поверително и няма да бъде показвано публично.
CAPTCHA
Този въпрос се изисква за спам превенция.
                             ___          
__ _ __ __ ___ / _ \ __ _
/ _` | \ \ /\ / / / _ \ | (_) | / _` |
| (_| | \ V V / | __/ \__, | | (_| |
\__, | \_/\_/ \___| /_/ \__, |
|___/ |_|
Въведете показаните ASCII символи с цифри и малки или големи букви на латиница.