In our Looking In series, we talk to Partners from outside CEE who are keeping an eye on the region to learn how they perceive CEE markets and their evolution. For this issue, we reached out to new Jones Day Partner Veronica Dragalin, who recently joined the firm’s Washington office after working as the Chief Anti-Corruption Prosecutor in Moldova since 2022.
CEELM: Let’s set the stage with a rundown of your career so far.
Dragalin: I was born in Moldova in the mid-80s when it was still part of the USSR. In the early ‘90s, my parents, with my father being a university mathematician, had the opportunity to leave. We lived in Italy and Germany before moving to the US when I was 11. I’ve been in the US ever since, earning my law degree and starting my career at Jones Day. I primarily focused on litigation for large clients involved in cross-border issues and had the chance to work on white-collar defense and investigations. This experience, along with my childhood witnessing endemic corruption in Moldova, inspired my desire to work for justice and the rule of law. It’s what ultimately prompted my decision to become a prosecutor.
I worked as a federal prosecutor in the Los Angeles area for six years, specializing in public corruption cases. By early 2022, when an opening for Chief Anti-Corruption Prosecutor in Moldova came up, I felt my background and specialization gave me something unique to offer. It was an unusual career move, but an interesting one. I started in August 2022.
CEELM: What are you most proud of over the last two and a half years of work in Moldova?
Dragalin: The history of the anti-corruption office in Moldova was somewhat tainted by scandals, with allegations that it was being co-opted by oligarchs to attack business and political rivals rather than fighting corruption and establishing justice. Coming into the office, I wanted to start with a clean slate. My outsider perspective, both to the office and the country, allowed me to hit the ground running with new energy. My main goal was to raise public trust and enhance transparency. The US legal system is much more transparent than the Moldovan system, for instance, in how and when charging documents become publicly available.
To address this, we made some changes. The anti-corruption prosecution office launched its own website to keep the public more informed about its work, and I conducted numerous press interviews both in Moldova and internationally. I encouraged my deputies to do the same, ultimately becoming more forthcoming and accessible. The office also shifted its focus from petty, endemic cases to high-level corruption. We went after large assets to seize ill-gotten gains. For example, the office identified and seized tens of millions of euros in assets abroad, a relatively large sum for Moldova. This also helped enhance Moldova’s international reputation through improved cooperation with other countries. With so many international investigations handled by the office, it was important to establish positive relationships with our counterparts abroad.
CEELM: What led to your recent move?
Dragalin: The position is officially a five-year term, as established by law. I ended up leaving halfway through, and in my final months, the anti-corruption prosecution office was put under intense strain. There were a lot of political decisions not to allocate resources to the office, which hampered our ability to investigate high-level corruption cases. The political rhetoric toward the office became more and more aggressive, likely prompted by the cases we were working on and the new ones we opened, which led to friction between me and political leaders.
I think it’s commonplace throughout the region for anti-corruption officers to clash with political actors every now and then. Ultimately, I was asked to resign by high-level political officials, which, in my view, violated the separation of powers, given that I was not appointed politically but held a position in the independent judiciary branch. After I declined to resign, the Parliament passed a law to dismantle the anti-corruption prosecution office, which led to my resignation, after all, in an effort to prevent that from happening. After my departure, the legislative process stalled, so I hope my resignation was in the best interest of the continued fight against corruption in Moldova.
It was a somewhat disappointing end to my tenure there, but not surprising given the similar anti-corruption experiences of other countries in the region.
CEELM: What brought you back to Jones Day specifically?
Dragalin: I was definitely attracted to the type of work Jones Day does. We have 40 offices worldwide, including many in Europe and across the US. Our clients and the matters we handle are quite sophisticated, often involving the complex, cross-border issues that many multinational companies face. The work itself felt like a natural next step in my career.
I had a great experience as an associate at Jones Day, working with a lot of talented lawyers. I chose Washington, given its international exposure and my background. I’d love to be able to rely on my expertise and the perspective I gained from working in law enforcement in the US and in Europe. I don’t think there are many prosecutors who have worked in multiple jurisdictions, so I believe I’m in a unique position to offer advice to clients facing potential criminal exposure and compliance issues across borders.
CEELM: How did your previous position shape your outlook?
Dragalin: Having experience in different jurisdictions, the US with its common law system and Moldova with its civil law system, influenced by the EU and its post-Soviet neighbors like Ukraine, has given me an insider’s view, a look behind the curtain in both types of jurisdictions.
Moldova is such a tiny country that most corruption schemes involve multiple jurisdictions, like using banks in Switzerland and Latvia, which allowed me to cooperate and work with many different systems. That particular insight will be very helpful for companies and future clients who might be facing compliance issues and investigations from multiple jurisdictions. Being fluent in both Romanian and English and having experience with both the US and European criminal justice systems makes it much easier for me to translate between the two, help people understand either of them, and ensure smoother sailing for their business.
Jones Day has many US clients working in Europe, which I think might shape my future work, as well as European clients with dealings in the US. I hope to be able to offer useful insights from both sides. I have already started onboarding with US and EU Jones Day partners, offering aid based on my Eastern European experiences. There aren’t many US law firms with offices in the Balkans or Eastern Europe, which means my knowledge base from a US perspective is somewhat unique and could be very useful.
CEELM: What are your thoughts on the evolution of White-Collar practices in Eastern Europe?
Dragalin: Countries go through a progression that is rarely linear toward a positive outcome in terms of the rule of law, which in turn affects the business climate and white-collar crime enforcement. Sometimes it’s a matter of two steps forward, three steps back. A lot of that depends on political will, and with each election cycle, the board gets reshuffled. Moldova has had quite a positive trajectory, for example, in terms of its Transparency International Corruption Perception Index. From 2022 to 2024, Moldova went up 29 positions in that ranking. While the anti-corruption prosecution office wasn’t the only contributor, I was very proud of that since it’s one of the best measurements we have regarding the status of corruption in a country. Looking at the region, a number of countries, such as Romania, have gone both up and down, which leads to fluctuating white collar enforcement and may also influence companies’ decisions to do business in those countries.
Looking at the European Public Prosecutor’s Office, I think that in the four years it has existed, its activity and reach over EU countries and candidate countries in the region have been impressive, and I would expect its enforcement efforts to continue growing in the coming years.
Also, as the EU accession process expands, looking at Ukraine, Moldova, and other countries in the region, there are very clear criteria that they have to meet, focusing on anti-corruption, rule of law, and justice, and there is an intrinsic motivator for those governments to achieve those milestones, seeing as how the funding they receive depends on it. Even with potentially turbulent political times ahead, the milestones will remain, given that funding is critical for these countries. So, having these goals set by the European Commission and bodies responsible for the EU accession process is reassuring for companies that want to continue or expand their business in this region and that, therefore, must often rely on the local justice system to enforce their rights or protect their business interests. The continued promotion of robust anti-corruption policies in these countries will mitigate the risks of doing business and hopefully create opportunities for more economic development in the region.
CEELM: Any other general trends international lawyers should keep an eye out for?
Dragalin: What was quite jarring to an extent is that in the US, more than 90% of criminal cases are resolved through plea negotiations and plea agreements, with a very small percentage of cases going to trial. That’s not very common in European jurisdictions, where a criminal proceeding is a very laborious process and cases often go to trial. One trend I noticed in Moldova, and that I was pushing for a lot, is that the country promoted the use of plea agreements while I was there by revising procedural rules. I think that it leads to a fair outcome for all sides, as well as saving government resources.
Also, cooperation plea agreements, where benefits such as a reduced sentence are offered in exchange for cooperation, are a great incentive for defendants to help the government prosecute more culpable members of criminal schemes who are usually more insulated and opaque. Without this incentive structure, it is very difficult to identify and prosecute the top-level bad actors. Such agreements are not very common in the EU, but there are countries, such as France, where it is possible for companies that cooperate to defer or resolve criminal proceedings. Moldova ended up adopting such an approach even though it was an uphill battle, and I wouldn’t be surprised if more and more European countries undertake similar reforms to more efficiently resolve white-collar investigations, particularly against companies.
This article was originally published in Issue 12.8 of the CEE Legal Matters Magazine. If you would like to receive a hard copy of the magazine, you can subscribe here.
