Hofman Fund · family history · documents from the 1980s

My Father in the Securitate Files

How his faith, family, and everyday life came under surveillance — and why this history matters.

My father, Gheorghe Hofman, appears in these documents through his meetings, his faith, and his wish to leave the country. The notes track ordinary things: a visit, a word of thanks in church, the place where he took his beehives. Read together, they show how deeply surveillance could reach into a family’s life.

01 · What happened

From confiscated Bibles to years of surveillance

On the night of 18–19 October 1980, a Militia checkpoint in Suceava stopped two cars. According to the CNSAS study cited on the sources page, the discovery was accidental. The trunks held seven sacks: 576 Russian-language Bibles, 167 booklets, and 40 cassette tapes.

The reports call the case Canalul-80. This was the authorities’ designation, with the year in its name; the family did not choose it.

My father, Gheorghe Hofman, son of Serghie and Victoria, was born on 22 March 1936 in Grănicești. He was a mechanic in Rădăuți and belonged to the Christian Brethren community, known in Romanian as Creștini după Evanghelie. In October 1980 he was 44; my mother, Margareta Hofman, was 41.

The stopping of the cars and the start of pretrial detention were separate events. In the documentation used here, pretrial detention begins on 31 October 1980.

For the judgment dated 10 January 1981, the family’s working transcription records two sentences combined into one year and six months. A certified copy remains to be obtained through CNSAS. The mention of “four years” appears in books and does not agree with this transcription. We keep the discrepancy visible until the document is verified.

The confiscation receipt dated 17 November 1980 lists, among other things, an I.T.T. 6331-24-05 cassette recorder. Tapes could carry a sermon from one place to another. For the family, the recorder had an ordinary use; in the case documents, it appears among the confiscated belongings.

A note dated 11 September 1981 records that my father had returned from detention and spoken at the Pentecostal congregation in Rădăuți. He had thanked people for helping his family during his absence. The person who invited him to speak is not named on this page.

The note does not establish the exact date of his release. It does show that surveillance continued after he came home: even his thanks to the community reached the Securitate.

In the transcription, the group file BIBLIA opens on 3 February 1981 and closes on 5 December 1985. Its closure does not mean that every form of surveillance had ended. The surveillance-file documentation also includes a note dated 17 July 1988.

02 · Reading a note

Who reports, who receives it, and what follows

In the example below, the heading identifies the officer, the source, the date, and the meeting house. Below it is a section marked N.L., where the officer records how the information is to be used and what tasks are assigned to the source. The abbreviation is not explained on the form consulted; we leave it as written.

This is an explanatory diagram, not a scan. The original remains in the family archive. We do not reproduce it in full here because it also contains the names of other people who may still be living.

According to the note dated 14 September 1984, the source asks my father about leaving for West Germany. He says that permission has not yet been granted and touches his coat pockets, suggesting he has something ready. During the same period, the source also visits a place where Baptist tourists from America were expected.

These are the accounts recorded in the document. They show the surveillance interest in departures, contacts, and visits; they should not be confused with a firsthand account by my father.

In other notes from the same source, the N.L. section mentions surveillance through the file and asks the source to find out where my father takes his beehives in summer. An ordinary activity became a surveillance assignment.

The notes from “Predescu Virgil” are typed in 1981–1983 and handwritten in 1983–1984. The typewriter and pen were the tools of the file. A copy could be sent to another officer. A note from 1981 sends a copy to Senior Lieutenant Cuciureanu Gheorghe, who handled intelligence work at Industrial High School No. 1. The other people named in that note are not named again here.

03 · Sources and officers

Seven cover names, identities still unconfirmed

The table summarizes the family’s working inventory, not the Securitate’s entire network. Note counts refer to the materials inventoried here. Three names are uncertain readings, and the real identities remain to be verified through CNSAS. A cover name must not be assigned to a neighbor or acquaintance on the basis of resemblance.

Read the seven source profiles

“Predescu Virgil”

The source with the most notes in this inventory. He meets the major, then a captain, at “Hurmuz.” He sees my father at Auto Service, enters the family home, and speaks with his wife. Eight notes. They show that information could also come from meetings inside the family home.

“Alecu”

Four notes, received by Captain Mihalcea. Three are typed at “Pensionara.” The note dated 11 September 1981 records my father’s thanks to the congregation after detention. “Alecu” is the officer’s source; this does not make my father an informant. The other notes from this source name people who may still be living. Their names are not reproduced here.

“Gheorghina”

One note, dated 31 March 1983, prepared by Sergeant Budeanu rather than Mihalcea. The meeting house is again “Hurmuz.” Two sources using the same house are not, for that reason alone, the same person. The body of the note is not reproduced here.

“Marian”

One note, April 1984, meeting house “Laura.” Its body names another person, whose name is not published here. The N.L. section directs that the note be copied to the file and assigns the source to continue watching.

“Chiric[ă] Emil”

The name is read from a handwritten signature and cannot be established with certainty. Two short notes describe my father spending more time at home and the source watching who visits him. N.L. records that he is under the service’s surveillance and assigns the source tasks concerning him. “Lada,” the proposed reading of the meeting house’s name, remains uncertain.

The neighbor

One note, dated 6 September 1984. The signature cannot be read with certainty. It may be “Morariu,” or a different word. The meeting house is illegible. The source reports meeting my father several times and hearing him discuss moving. The person he visited is not named here. N.L. keeps him under surveillance. The line about American tourists remains to be deciphered and is not treated as confirmed information.

“Vasilache”

One note, dated 17 July 1988. Both the source name and the meeting house are uncertain readings. The signature is outside the photograph. The body names people who may still be living and is not reproduced. The note shows that the surveillance documentation extends into 1988.

The officers’ roles

Mihalcea Aurel receives most of the notes: a captain in 1981–1983 and a major from 1984, with the Rădăuți City Securitate. He writes the N.L. sections on his notes. One note is not his: 31 March 1983, Sergeant Budeanu, source “Gheorghina.” Cuciureanu Gheorghe is named as the officer receiving a copy at the high school. These references identify officers receiving information, distinct from the sources supplying it.

The note dated 11 September 1981 bears a stamp naming Colonel Rangu Constantin, head of the county Securitate, and Lieutenant Colonel Ursu Mihai, head of Service I; the round stamp covers part of the names. The head of the city Securitate appears on the same stamp. His surname is obscured by ink, so we do not transcribe it as certain. The stamps show how the note circulated within the institution.

A name search without documents confirming identity can confuse different people. References to Mihalcea Aurel in books about Gherla and Caraș-Severin are not used here to identify the Rădăuți officer. The public CNSAS lists could not be fully checked during the initial research; the absence of a result is not a conclusion about a person.

04 · What we can learn today

Protecting freedom and trust

Reading the file brings me back to a question: how does a person’s ordinary life come to be treated as a threat? In these notes, faith, visits, and the wish to leave the country become subjects of surveillance.

Comparisons with the present need care. A phone, a camera, or an online account does not, simply by existing, prove a system of repression. What matters is who uses the information, for what purpose, and how an affected person can challenge abuse.

A documented example: China in Freedom House’s 2024 report

Freedom on the Net 2024 — China covers 1 June 2023 – 31 May 2024. It gives China 9 out of 100, rated “Not Free,” and describes penalties for online activities such as discussing religious beliefs, sharing news, and communicating with people abroad.

This source provides a concrete example of a risk to freedom. It does not establish that the technologies, institutions, or experiences are identical to those in my father’s file. It concerns the stated period; it is not an up-to-date assessment of every country.

05 · Sources and verification

What we know and what still needs clarification

The public CNSAS pages are not a catalogue of every informant from 1945–1989. They list people examined in connection with public office and Securitate personnel whose examination was requested. Fosta Securitate links to the list of collaborators and the list of personnel. On 10 September 2026, the page listed 4,927 officers and non-commissioned officers and 1,082 collaborators. A missing name is not an official clearance. For court proceedings, see the CNSAS register. For identities in one’s own file, see file access and the identity-disclosure request forms. These CNSAS resources are in Romanian.

Names sometimes confused online — Canalul-80, the Danube–Black Sea Canal, Canalul-81, EVANGHELISTUL, and BIBLIA — are explained on the sources page. Dates are set out in the calendar.

06 · Questions for discussion

For young readers, families, and communities

You can read this page on your own, with family, or in class. For a short discussion, begin with questions 1, 4, 6, and 9. Discuss the documents and the effects of surveillance without guessing identities. Question 10 remains open pending verification through CNSAS.

1. The cover says EVANGHELISTUL; the note says “Predescu Virgil.” Which name belongs to the person being watched, and which to the reporting source? Why does this distinction matter?
2. The house also has a name: “Hurmuz,” “Pensionara,” or “Laura.” What does a house’s cover name conceal? Why does sharing a meeting house not, by itself, make two sources the same person?
3. Of the four entries at the top of the note, which can identify a person with a rank, and which identifies the source by a cover name? Where is N.L., and who writes it?
4. N.L. assigns the source to find out where my father takes his beehives in summer. Why would a state want that information? What other ordinary activity on this page receives similar treatment?
5. The checkpoint on 18–19 October 1980 did not rely on a camera. What was enough to stop the cars? What might a camera add, and what would it not change?
6. Pretrial detention begins on 31 October 1980. My father was 44 and my mother 41. The note of 11 September 1981 places him back home, speaking in the congregation. What does the continuation of notes into 1988 tell you?
7. Three readings are uncertain: “Chiric[ă] Emil,” “Morariu,” and “Vasilache.” What should a researcher do with a word they cannot decipher? What is the risk of publishing it as a name read with certainty?
8. A name missing from the public CNSAS list is not an official clearance. Give two reasons from this page.
9. Freedom House’s 2024 China report describes punishment for discussing faith and communicating with people abroad. What similarities can we discuss with the family documents? What differences and limits must the comparison preserve?
10. The seven real identities are still marked “to be requested.” Where should they be requested? Why does this page not publish them before an answer is received?