EXCLUSIVE. The lawyer of the Tate brothers, Eugen Vidineac, breaks the silence and talks about the flaws in the evidence of the file instrumented by the DIICOT: “We requested the Prosecutor’s Office to confront the victims with the defendants!”. Find out why the US Embassy is in an unprecedented situation and about the children of the Tate brothers in Romania

For the first time since the brothers Andrew and Tristan Tate, together with their two close persons, Luana Radu and Georgiana Naghel, were remanded in custody for 30 days, the lawyer Eugen Vidineac breaks the silence and speaks about this case instrumentalized by DIICOT (the Directorate for the Investigation of Organized Crime and Terrorism – Translator’s note).

Lawyer Vidineac is outraged that, up to the time of this interview granted exclusively for Gândul, 07.01.2023, he did not have access to the file, although on 10.01.2023 the appeal against the measure of arrest is to be judged before the Court of Appeal Bucharest.

For the first time, the defense attorney of the Tate brothers brings clarifications related to the so-called evidence of the investigator against the two crimes of rape supported – as he declares – only by the statement of one of the injured parties who is a citizen of the Republic of Moldova. Moreover, he talks about the absolutely unusual situation in which the US Embassy in Bucharest is, inasmuch as it referred to the prosecuting authorities the abduction and kidnapping of an American citizen – the injured party – by the Tate brothers, but at the same time is obliged to provide consular legal assistance to the two defendants who are also American citizens. Until this moment, the lawyer says that he has requested a confrontation between the victims and his clients, victims about whom he has information that they are no longer on Romanian territory for some time. In the interview you’ll also learn about the two out-of-court expert reports, as well as the fact that the Tate brothers – in the lawyer’s opinion, were playing a role designed to attract followers on social media, role that cannot stand up as evidence in the prosecution.

What the Tate brothers are doing in detention, if they have regrets or not, if they understand their situation, are information that you can find in the extensive interview conducted by Gândul with lawyer Eugen Vidineac that you can watch in full on the Youtoube channel.

 How do you do, Mr. Lawyer!

How do you do, Ms. Anghelescu!

Thank you for the opportunity of this interview. I’d like to get straight to the point.

With pleasure.

You are due to appear in court to defend your clients, the Tate brothers, on January 10th.

That’s right.

Up to this point, have you had access to the file to formulate your defense?

Dear Ms. Anghelescu, unfortunately, no. I want to specify that the Tate brothers were changed from witnesses to suspects and from suspects to defendants on the evening of December 29, 2022, the date until which they had the status of witnesses, so that they would not have the possibility to study the criminal investigation file. They were detained when the DIICOT prosecutor informed them of their status as defendants and issued a detention order, so that on 30 December, at 2 p.m., a deadline could be set to discuss the proposal to issue a preventive arrest warrant, for a period of 30 days, and we had the opportunity, as defenders, to study the prosecution file for only 45 minutes before the start of the hearing, at which time we also became aware of the content of the proposal for a preventive arrest, which was over 100 pages long.

The first searches took place, as far as I know, in April 2022, when several computers, laptops, equipment – everything that was found there was seized during the search. During this period, while they were witnesses, until 29.12.2022, were these goods returned to them?

A part. On the occasion of the search of 11.04.2022, several electronic devices were seized, to be subjected to computer searches. Throughout this period – and the reference period is 11.04.2022 and 29.12.2022 – some of these electronic devices were returned, computer searches were carried out on them. Some of them have not been returned even to this day.

Was it normal?

From my point of view, the period of time is long enough to extract all the data from all the computer systems and to conduct all the computer searches, we talk about a period of eight months.

On the charge of rape: „There is not a single piece of evidence at this point, apart from the victim’s statement!”

Now, the crime of rape is among the charges that are quite serious also in public eye. From my information, it would be rape committed on a female person, from the Republic of Moldova, and… would it have been one or two crimes?

Two material acts (actus reus) are retained.

Two material acts, for one of the Tate brothers.

That’s right.

In this context, can you, as their defense attorney, there is to support this charge?

Dear Mrs. Anghelescu, I will point out from the beginning that even up to the present moment (editor’s note – 07.01.2023) the criminal investigation file has not been made available to us to ensure the effective defense of our clients. In this sense, I would like to point out that, at least from this point of view, I am also somehow amazed together with my colleagues, with the distinguished lawyer Constantin Gliga and my other colleague, who are instrumentalizing this file and we spend day and night trying to piece together the puzzle of the allegations presented by the prosecutor, there is not a single piece of evidence, apart from the victim’s statement, that leads to the idea that a crime of rape was committed.

Moreover, from the reasoned conclusion of the Judge of Rights and Freedoms of the Bucharest Court, it is very clear that such a crime is not supported and that there are no evidentiary elements to support such crime, which is why the Judge of Rights and Freedoms does not have the reasonable suspicion that this act could be attributed to any of the defendants.

Now, we know very well that the Judge of Rights and Freedoms does not tackle the merits as the pre-trial chamber judge does. So, in this context, the judge of rights and freedoms focused on the seriousness of the crime, as it is in the letter of the law, to decide this arrest. Moreover, they also weighed the other two offences, that of trafficking in human beings and that of organized criminal group

Allow me, however, to point out the following issue: even if the judge of rights and freedoms, at the time of considering the proposal for the issuance of a preventive arrest warrant, is not in the procedural moment to consider the facts, but the provisions of 204 Code of Criminal Procedure, in conjunction with 223 Code of Criminal Procedure. Do not forget that 223 Code of Criminal Procedure refers to reasonable suspicion. In order for me, as a judge of rights and freedoms, to be able to analyze reasonable suspicion, I must analyze the reasons described in detail in the report with the proposal for preventive arrest, presented by the prosecutor, in conjunction with elements from the criminal file, which I have in front of me when I analyze the proposal.

Or, if after a few hours, the judge of rights and liberties, studying the criminal investigation file, in conjunction with the information contained in the report with the proposal for preventive arrest, assesses that there are no elements to create reasonable suspicion on the perpetration of this act, it is obvious that the judge himself supports the opinion of the defense. We have no evidence.

Why extrajudicial expert reports cannot be considered as evidence 

Now, let’s go back a bit to the crime of rape. I was struck, in the statement of reasons that was made public – you have it in full – by the existence of two extrajudicial expert reports, which were allegedly made with reference to the two women – the one who is an American citizen and the one who is from the Republic of Moldova. I want to ask you specifically: what is the matter with these extrajudicial expert reports, when were they carried out and when were they drawn up, and if you have any comments on this?

Nice question and thank you very much for asking it. I’ll tell you why. It was one of our defenses that we tried to use in favour of the defendants when we were considering the proposal for pre-trial detention. We are talking about two reports, extrajudicial evidence. What does extrajudicial evidence mean?

That it was not requested by the prosecutor.

That it was not requested by the prosecutor, that the alleged victim, the alleged injured person, went to the office of a random psychologist – what do I know, chosen only according to the criteria of that particular person, known only to the applicant, and following discussions, the analysis carried out by the professional, this expert report was issued.

I don’t even know why we call it an expert report, it’s not even a real expert report. This – I call it the point of view – of a psychologist was issued regarding the so-called traumas that being analyzed, the people undergoing psychological control by the professional in question, have suffered.

What it seems to me and what I don’t understand: how could the accusation have based itself on extrajudicial evidence and how could it be presented to the court, in the proposal for preventive detention, as evidence, that this extrajudicial expert opinion – with the quotation marks that are required – was the basis for the proposal, when, for such serious offences, so reprehensible, evidence should be presented at the time of the proposal for provisional arrest which does not leave any doubt as to impartiality or partiality, which does not leave any doubt as to the veracity of the evidence, as to the person who asked for it to be granted and administered.

So, actually, I believe that the injured parties submitted such a report to the prosecutor, it was filed in the case file and, as a great piece of evidence in the case file, it was argued that the trauma exists and consequently the aggression, in whatever form it was expressed, is also proven. Not even remotely, as a matter of law, does it stand.

„At this moment, we know that some people have made some statements or complaints contrary to the interests of other people, they left quietly, undisturbed, and today we don’t know where to get them!”

I would like you to point me out, please, if possible: when exactly were these expertises taken? When were these assessments on those two girls performed and are they still in the country at this time?

I stated from the beginning that I would limit myself to presenting, in our discussion, elements of a nature that would not endanger the criminal investigation or hinder in any way the proper conduct of the criminal process, but, in the spirit of equality, I answer that we do not know whether at this moment the two are still in the country or not; however, it seems that they are no longer in the country, that these psychological expert reports were drawn up around the time they left the country – and here again there is uncertainty, it seems, from the data, that the said reports were drawn up after their departure from the country – but I am thinking why these injured persons are not on Romanian territory today, why the prosecution for respecting the fundamental rights of the accused to prove their innocence and, somehow enjoying the presumption of innocence, cannot be heard at this time.

We are, Mrs Anghelescu, in a situation where someone throws a bomb, a whole chaos is created, everyone is trying to find answers, as for the person who threw the bomb, we don’t know if he still exists, where he exists, if he still supports his accusation, if he no longer supports his accusation. So, basically, at this moment, we know that some people have made some statements or complaints contrary to the interests of other people, they left undisturbed, and today we don’t know where to get them, but probably, at the moment when the criminal prosecution material will finally be made available to us to ensure the effective defense of our clients, we, as defenders, will also learn more data concerning this subject.

Since they have been injured parties in the case and have claimed damages or extortion, rather, as a result of the so-called trauma suffered, does that mean that the preliminary complaints are still upheld – except that I understand that, at this stage, you do not know when exactly these persons left, when, precisely, the assessment was made and whether they can be heard again, so that you too can ask questions?

Directly and in court at the time of the trial.

This could be done by videoconference.

It could be done by electronic means.

Also, among the evidence requested by us, the defense, on behalf of our clients, we sent the Public Prosecutor’s Office notes of evidence in which we even requested a confrontation of the injured parties with the clients we represent. So far, the case investigator, the prosecutor, has not expressed a position on the proposed evidence.

On the possible extension of the file: „I have the right to wonder if there is something more and we are missing it…!”

In your experience, do you think that what we are now calling the Tate case is an investigation motivated by other interests, that are being camouflaged, for the time being, shall we say, and the investigation would actually be pursuing something else? Do you sense that, in the next period, there would be an expansion of the criminal investigation that would lead in another direction, that would also be surprising?

I do not intuit, at this moment, anything related to this subject, since the opportunity to extend the criminal investigation to other facts or to other persons belongs exclusively to the prosecutor of the case. However, corroborating the evidence that was brought to our attention through the acts carried out and enforceable against the defendants, up to this moment, with the means of proof described in the criminal investigation report or in the other documents that have been handed to us – not the file, I emphasize – I am allowed, I do not intuit, but I am allowed to wonder if there is something more than that and it escapes us today.

Do you also sense, perhaps, an interference of the Romanian Secret Services, in this case?

By no means. I, personally, do not intuit such a hypothesis. We shall see whether or not such an issue occurs. At this point, I don’t have the file – I’m going back to that – I don’t have the file.

 About the interception warrants: “Next on KissFM “

 Does the motivated reasoning given by the judge of rights and freedoms indicate that there was an interception warrant or just computer searches?

There were also some warrants, but there are prosecution data that we are going to confirm as well as the way in which they were executed and see about their legality. It is far too early in the process to talk about this.

And when were those warrants given? When was the first mandate established?

I do not remember from the file, and I told you, these are data from the file. Let’s stick to general issues. That is, to what is the existing evidence at this point.

Why we wanted to point this out: It was interesting to know if the first wiretapping warrant was issued prior to a criminal investigation.

Got it. You know, I have a saying: Next on KissFM. We’ll see.

About the US Embassy: I have never encountered such a situation!

 I would like to ask you, now, in relation to this bizarre situation, so to say, in which the United States Embassy in Bucharest is, at the same time, the legal entity that signaled, reported the kidnapping and false imprisonment of an American citizen on the territory of Romania, in the house of the Tate brothers, and at the same time, the Embassy is also obliged to provide consular legal assistance to Andrew Tate and Tristan Tate. Have you ever heard of such a bizarre situation in your career?

Yes, I get the question. The situation is not usual, indeed. I have never encountered such a situation before, of course, but I’m thinking about the moment when the authorities became aware of a possible kidnapping on Romanian territory. When we are talking about a foreign citizen, it is legal, it is natural to notify the Romanian authorities immediately so they can take the necessary legal measures. On the other hand, since other persons in the case file have already the capacity of defendants and are, coincidentally, also Americans, I believe that it was somehow mandatory for the United States Embassy to express its support for the defense of the fundamental rights of its citizens, respectively to ensure, somehow, through this consular support, that they do not experience unequal treatment or do not experience discriminatory treatment due to their status as American citizens.

The situation is unprecedented, but how the Embassy or Consulate do their job is not really our problem as lawyers.

Yes, only in this case it is up to the Tate brothers whether they agree to be granted this consular assistance or not?

They agreed, they requested it.

So, they requested this consular assistance from detention?

Yes.

OK, and so far, what has come of this consular assistance?

To the best of my knowledge, the consular representative discussed the Tate brothers’ wishes regarding the respect of their rights to an accurate translation of every document, every prosecution document, every indictment, every stage of the proceedings, and I understand that they have already been assured that a competent certified translation will be made available to them, or they will be provided with a competent certified translation that will make the prosecution and the documents  of the criminal prosecution effective and, from this point of view, the respect of the rights of American citizens will be granted.

 “In court, the Tate brothers signaled that they didn’t understand the translation…They looked quite scared…!”

 You said they requested a competent certified translation Am I to understand that there was a court translation when the DIICOT prosecutor’s remand was defended not exactly accurate?

Yes, I had to deal with this situation, without wishing to refer in any way to the professional competence of the lady translator. There was also a lot of talk, a lot of information, but the Tate brothers repeatedly pointed out that they didn’t understand the translation and looked at the defense quite scared, quite wondering what was going on, what was being talked about. I intervened on two occasions, both myself and my colleague Adrian Săndulescu, to ask the court to change the translator, as the defendants do not understand faithfully or even generally the charges brought against them. The court said at the time that all the parties in the courtroom spoke English and that we would be able to get the strictly necessary information to the defendants in order to make them aware of the charges for which they were being brought before the court, with a proposal to remand them in custody.

What evidence is there to support human and organized group trafficking

With regard to the other two offences – trafficking in human beings and organized crime group – what evidence is there in the file, from the motivated reasoning?

In my view, there is no evidence there either, and I am talking about evidence leading, by itself or directly, to the formation of an opinion of reasonable suspicion regarding the commission of offences provided for and punishable by criminal law. In this case, we are talking about human trafficking and organized crime.

The documents to which we have so far had access do not accurately describe matters relating to the constituent elements of the offence of organized criminal group, they do not accurately describe the hierarchy of the group, they do not describe the functions of each person who was part of this alleged criminal group and, also, with regard to trafficking in human beings, as the offence is described, it does not comply with the legal requirements concerning the way in which the offence of trafficking in human beings is committed.

Just so everyone understands: so, when we talk about human trafficking, we have in mind, strictly by law, transportation against the will, shelter, also by coercion, and so on. Are you saying that there is no evidence whatsoever from the motivated reasoning of the judge of rights and freedoms?

I’m going to step out of our file and ask you, rhetorically, the following question: if, in our understanding, from our discussions, you propose to me to come and visit me on the territory of Romania, you being a Spanish citizen, and I ask you several times: are you sure you want to come, are you sure you want us to meet, and you also motivate your decision to come and visit me, i.e. the fact that you no longer like Spain, since you travel quite a lot and I provide you with the financial means so that we can see each other – is there any constraint in my transporting you, as a person, on the territory of Romania?

No, obviously not, but what happens next also matters.

Absolutely.

Because human trafficking also involves other types of transportation after I come, let’s say, to Romania, get in touch with you and then live in your house or in the neighborhood and things happen that traumatize me – because we want everyone to be well informed on these issues – six complaints, however.

This is not true.

 “It’s not two complaints, but not six either!”

 Why do you say this is not true?

That’s all I can tell you: there are not six complaints.

Are there only two?

There aren’t just two complaints, but there aren’t six complaints either. There are several statements and of those statements, part of them, have been considered as given by victims, but they are presented as victims, without having the status of injured party in the case or having ever filed a complaint against the clients I represent.

What you have just said is very important. So, there are people, girls, who have made statements, but who have been presented by the DIICOT as victims, although they do not have a prior complaint at this time and, therefore, there would not be six prior complaints.

And I stop. I’ve given general data. It’s data that the client gave me a mandate to present. I can’t talk any further because the prosecution is not public at this time. I have limited myself to what was described in the DIICOT communiqué on the evening of the 29.12.2022 for public opinion and we are discussing around this communiqué, because these are already public matters.

 „No new facts are retained in the criminal prosecution documents!”

 How do the Tate brothers feel in custody? Have you seen them?

I see them every day.

You see them every day. Okay, so what’s their current situation?

First of all, it took them some time to understand why they were there. I’ve told you the thing about this whole transformation, reversal of the situation, starting on 29 December.

If on 11 April 2022, when I am a witness, a house search takes place, all the computer systems in my house are seized, I cooperate with the criminal investigation authorities, I make available, I make requests for the return of part of my property, so that this case can be dealt with swiftly, as it may affect my image and nothing happens, on 29 December a search takes place in the same house, the objects that were the subject of the April search are seized again, part of them returned.

So, they were the same.

Some of them, yes. Not quite the same, but some of them, yes. If I had a mobile phone returned to me, I don’t know, let’s say in July, now the same phone is seized again, in December.

There are no new facts in the prosecution documents between 11 April and 29 December. We are not talking about new facts or acts by the prosecution during the reference period.

That was the question I wanted to ask you.

These people obviously don’t understand anything anymore. Sir, what prompted the prosecution body not to take such an action or throw out such a procedural quality on April 11 and prompted it on December 29?

“Tate brothers never ran away!”

 Maybe because there were no prior complaints?

Well, let’s say, there were no prior complaints, or some statements would not have been transformed, the quality of some statements would not have changed somehow, the quality of some people into victims, but I go back and show: there are no new elements. It is not about new elements leading, from my point of view, as a defender – obviously the prosecution has a different position – but from my point of view, as a lawyer, I say this: if I don’t have new elements, what is the basis of the arrest proposal? Concrete social danger to public order, on 223 Second Section, Paragraph 2, Second Section Code of Criminal Procedure. That is to say, I rely on issues that support my theory that letting the defendant go free would be a concrete social danger to public order, would create a disadvantageous image of the execution of justice, of the way justice is carried out, the defendant could evade prosecution and flee. Or, concerning the Tate brothers, even if we were dealing, at that time, on April 11, 2022, with an in-rem prosecution, it was obvious that the criminal prosecution was following, right? Clear. And then, if I know, on April 11, that there is a file where prosecution documents are being made for an act of rape that targets me, they left the territory of Romania at least six times and returned and never ran away, what could have determined them in December to change the way they collaborate with the criminal investigation bodies?

 About contempt for the law and for women. The Tate brothers’ position: „Statements taken out of context!”

 I understand that there are, however, in the motivated reasoning some transcripts, shall we say, or certain fragments of discussions that would have taken place between them and the injured persons, so to speak. And there are also some, shall we say, statements made by one of the Tate brothers on certain social media channels from which the judge of rights and freedoms retained that there was a contempt for the law and for women in general. These seem to have weighed quite heavily in convincing the judge to grant the arrest warrant. What do they say about this attitude that they had? Are they sorry, do they have regrets?

No, I’m not saying about a regret, about regrets. I’m not talking about regrets, I’m talking about the following issue: with reference to the claim that they have contempt for women, they say that these issues are ripped out of some context, out of some interviews they’ve done on social media, of over two hours, but they also say: if we live our lives surrounded by over 300 people, women and men, we have a lot of girlfriends and supporters all over the world, we’ve been out in public all the time with our girlfriends and there have been no complaints from our girlfriends – even public people have come out these days in public and said that they’ve been with one of the Tate brothers and he’s not a violent, uneducated, abusive character, as he is being portrayed at this point – how could they have made such claims in virtual space? On the one hand. On the other hand, Mr. Andrew Tate claims that his discussion of Romania being corrupt is taken absolutely out of context from a discussion, an interview lasting over two hours, in which he talked about the fact that in other countries there is a high degree of corruption, which is likely to spark international wars, and that in Romania things are much better, that in Romania he has not seen such corruption, that in Romania he feels safe, and I really understood this from him and we are going to prove it – of course, we are in working teams and the working team that is in charge of obtaining the data on social media will provide us with all the necessary information in due time for the defense – I understood that they were setting an example: look, mister, if I’m caught driving at I don’t know how many miles an hour, it’s not such a serious offence. I can make a complaint; a judge can come and see if there is evidence that I committed that offence or not. I mean, I understood from Andrew that it is a fact taken out of context and that he has always promoted Romania in a positive way.

About the image the Tate brothers promoted on social media. Masked and unmasked

 One last question.

Excuse me, I’d like to say just one more thing: I would like – and this is a matter supported by my clients, which I personally believe, they made me believe it – the difference between character and person. We live in the reality of 2023 in which various people promote themselves, as characters, on social media, promoting an image, a product, an idea, a trend.

A false idea, you mean.

I don’t know if it’s necessarily fake, in its entirety.

That they wear a mask, they are like actors, who, in fact, sell what is wanted on social media, you mean?

Exactly. Personally, I sit and wonder, and I don’t know if you can characterize a person or morally profile a person so extensively that it be used as evidence in a criminal trial, what he presents on social media with what the person represents in real life. Maybe yes, a person creates for himself a reprehensible, immoral image on social media and I could, as a common citizen, say: sir, leave  me alone, I saw X or Y posting on TikTok or, I know, on Instagram, I changed my mind, I made my own, absolutely bad opinion and I can experience the outmost disappointment, against my own conviction, when, meeting the person in real life, I see that it is a high quality person, with stable, solid moral principles.

Now, in the case of the Tate brothers: I don’t know what their intent was in promoting themselves on social media, but I sit here and wonder – can that intent from the social media stand as evidence in a criminal prosecution case, with respect to a criminal character?

We will see what happens on the 10th.

Exactly.

 “I’ve known them for four years! They are not married but they have children in Romania!”

 I would like to ask you one more question, I am very curious.

Please do.

Did one or both of the Tate brothers have connections with the international press, were they, at one time or another, presenters or mediators or operators? Have they worked in international media?

I know that, at the time I met the Tate brothers, I learned about them that they were world vice-champions in kickboxing and, as a result of these world sporting distinctions, they would have been in demand and collaborated with international television channels on sports commentary or sports broadcasts – I have this information as well.

Which you supported?

Yes, somehow I sustained it in front of the judge, because I also had to talk about positive sides of the Tate brothers’image, somehow in opposition to the image described by the prosecution.

How long do you know them?

For approximately four years.

And how did you meet?

They were recommended to me for legal advice on civil matters.

Do they have a family?

They have children. They both have children.

In Romania?

Yes.

In Romania? Both?

Yes.

How many children do they have?

I don’t know.

So, both Andrew and Tate are fathers. They’re not married, but they have children.

Yes.

Alright, OK. I thank you very much for the interview and wish you luck on the 10th.

I too wish myself success and I wish that, no matter how the truth is in this file, we can clarify the truth as it is and if there is a reprehensible act then let it be proven as such, and if there is not, let there be a legal and just solution for my clients. We are still in the criminal investigation phase, we do not know if the case will be sent to trial or not, or when the prosecutor will complete the criminal investigation.

All public opinion is waiting to see the outcome of this investigation, and at the end of the day, the truth is what matters the most.

Indeed. And we are here, as lawyers, to make sure of two things: one, that our clients are guaranteed all their rights and all their procedural and legal rights are respected and, two, that the truth be known.

So be it!