Source: https://iclg.com/practice-areas/business-crime-laws-and-regulations/romania
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 04:51:01+00:00

Document:
The enforcement authorities for business crimes are the regular Prosecutors’ Offices (“PO”), supported by the Judicial Police; both have specialised professionals for economic crimes. They are divided by county and city/district (attached to courts of law), with a central structure in Bucharest. Furthermore, there are two specialised structures within the PO with the High Court of Cassation and Justice (“HCCJ”) – the National Anticorruption Directorate (“NAD”) and the Directorate for Investigating Organised Crime and Terrorism (“DIOCT”), both having central and territorial offices.
In all these structures the general rule is that the prosecutor decides, whereas the police officer can perform many of the investigative activities under his supervision.
Throughout the regular POs, the competence to investigate and prosecute a case results from the type of crime committed (less or more dangerous) or on the status of a person (e.g. senator, judge, general).
Moreover, Government Emergency Order (“GEO”) no. 43/2002 for NAD and GEO 78/2016 for DIOCT determine the criteria by which their special competence incurs and prevails (special categories of crimes).
Territorially, the competent authority is (generally) the one from the place where the crime was perpetrated.
The National Agency of Fiscal Administration (“NAFA”) can conduct preliminary investigations regarding tax evasions, having the obligation to inform the POs when it suspects that a crime has been committed. However, any prosecution can be conducted only by a prosecutor. Similarly, the National Office for Prevention and Control of Money Laundering (“NOPCML”) and the Fight Against Fraud Department (“DLAF”) can also conduct preliminary inquiries regarding their areas of competence.
Romania has seen a recrudescence of high profile cases, including against or in relation to businesses (Romanian and foreign alike): e.g. Microsoft; Siveco; HP; and Asesoft.
The Romanian courts are structured territorially: Ordinary Courts (several in each county); Tribunals (one in each county); Courts of Appeal (15, regional); and the HCCJ. There are no specialised criminal courts in Romania. Most business crimes are judged by Tribunals or superior courts.
Romania has a continental judicial system, based on courts constituted only of judges.
There are several incriminations for misrepresentation of facts about an entity’s financial situation by its representatives, such as art. 134 from Law. 24/2017, art. 279 from Law 297/2004 and art. 271 from Law 31/1990. Criminal intent is required.
Any form of false statements/recordings in the accountancy will be criminally prosecuted, usually under art. 321 CC (and in conjunction with tax evasion). Other relevant and related crimes might be fraudulent management (art. 242 CC) or bankruptcy (simple or fraudulent, art. 240-241 CC). All require criminal intent.
The incrimination is art. 134 from Law 24/2017, which also sanctions the abusive usage/disclosure of privileged information and market manipulation. Criminal intent is required.
Art. 295 CC incriminates the appropriation, use or disposal of money, values or any other assets managed or administrated by a person, for their benefit or for another. Intent is needed.
Bribery has a very broad spectre of incrimination, for both active and passive corruption: taking/receiving bribe (art. 289–290 CC), traffic peddling (art. 291 CC) and buying influence (art. 292). Law 78/2000 further criminalises other specific conducts by officials. Criminal intent must be proven.
Art. 5 from Law 11/1991 regulates many such crimes: the use of a business, emblem or packaging that may cause confusion with those legitimately used by another trader or manufacturer; import, export, storage, sale of goods/services, etc. bearing false patents/trademarks/other types of intellectual property rights to mislead others; disclosure, acquisition; or use of commercial secrets by third parties as a result of commercial/industrial espionage. All require criminal intent.
Art. 65 from Law 21/1996 sanctions cartel-type agreements performed with the purpose of hindering, restricting or distorting competition.
Tax fraud crimes are incriminated by Law 241/2005 (art. 3–9) in a variety of forms, all of which can be committed only with intent: e.g. registering false incomes/expenditures, not registering real commercial operations, hiding goods and assets, not complying with reporting duties, or forged books.
The penalties are some of the most severe in Europe – if the prejudice exceeds EUR 500,000, the prison sentence can be up to 15 years.
Several crimes (committed with intent) should be observed: alteration of public tenders (art. 246 CC); illegally obtaining funds (art. 306 CC); and diversion of funds (art. 307 CC).
One of the most controversial crimes in Romania is that of abuse of office (art. 297 CC), which can consist of any deed of a public servant who fails to perform an act or does it faultily (breaching a legal duty provided by a Law or Government Ordinance), causing damage or violating the rights or legitimate interests of a person or entity. Through the soon-to-be-implemented legislative changes, this crime will suffer important limitations, including a threshold for the damage.
Art. 98 of GEO 195/2005 incriminates certain actions of pollution, destruction, transport of dangerous goods, etc., if they are susceptible to endanger public health or the life of humans, animals or plants. Intent and negligence could be incurrent.
Art. 385–392 CC sanction different intentional misconducts: forgery of votes; corruption of voters; improper voting procedures; etc. Additionally, art. 13 from Law 78/2000 incriminates the action of the leader of a party/syndicate/patronage/NGO to use his influence or authority for obtaining, for himself or another, money or other undeserved goods.
This is criminalised in art. 120 from Law 24/2017 and sanctioned by art. 134 from Law 24/2017, the same as insider trading.
Money laundering is defined in Law 656/2002 (art. 19). Wire frauds are provided by art. 249 CC (computer fraud) and art. 250–251 CC (fraudulent financial operations). All require criminal intent.
Cybercrimes are incriminated in art. 360–365 CC: illegal access to an e-system; illegal interception of e-data; alteration of e-data; unauthorised transfer of e-data; and illegal operations with devices or software.
There are no data protection crimes in Romanian law (just contraventions).
Law 86/2006 (the Customs Code) incriminates certain specific conducts, such as smuggling, using fake or forged customs documents, tampering in any form (collecting, holding, producing, transporting, receiving, depositing, offering, unpacking, selling) with assets that have a special customs regime, if the person knows that the assets have been/are destined to be smuggled, etc.
One of the most recurring crimes in Romania (usually a “complement” of business crimes – tax evasion, money laundering, corruption, etc.) is of an organised criminal group (art. 305 CC), namely initiating, creating, joining or supporting an organised criminal group, which is defined as a structured group, made up of three or more persons, which exists for a certain period and acts in a coordinated manner for the purpose of committing one or more crimes.
Yes, there are crimes which are sanctioned in attempted form (usually with lesser penalties), whereas for other crimes any preparative acts or beginning of execution are assimilated to the crime in completed form.
Corporate criminal liability can incur when the crimes are committed by the representatives or the employees in the performance of the object of activity of the legal entities or in their interest or on their behalf.
Criminal liability is personal for corporate and natural persons alike and can also coexist; the latter when the managers/officers/directors/employees of the company have perpetrated a crime themselves (with intent or by negligence). One’s criminal liability does not automatically determines the other’s liability.
In most cases, individuals are the main targets of the investigations, yet corporate criminal liability has increased in occurrence following an increased accent placed on asset recovery.
Yes, the corporate criminal liability and other consequences will be transferred to the resulting legal entity.
The general statute of limitation (of three, five, eight, 10 or 15 years, depending on the penalty limits) starts at the date of the perpetration of the crime and until the date of the first investigative act communicated to the defendant (which interrupts the course of the statute of limitation).
Once the statute of limitation has been reached, the crimes cannot be prosecuted unless they are part of a continuous or continuing crime (actions or inactions that are part of the same crime, extended in time but with the same criminal resolution and against the same person), when the statute of limitations starts from the date of the last action/inaction.
The special statute of limitations is met when, no matter the number of interruptions of the general statute term, the general term plus an extra term is reached until definitive conviction.
The extra term is half the general term for crimes committed before April 22nd, 2012 and equal to the term for crimes after this date. The recent modifications of the CC (not yet entered into force) provide for a return to an extra term of half the general one.
The enforcement agencies can enforce their authority outside Romania if the author of the business crime is a Romanian citizen/entity and if the sanction stipulated by the Romanian law is imprisonment exceeding 10 years, or if the business crime is also incriminated in the country where it was committed. In all situations, authorisation must be granted by the Chief Prosecutor of the PO with the HCCJ/competent Court of Appeal. In terms of frequency of international cooperation, in 2017 there were over 10,000 criminal investigations in which Romanian and foreign authorities cooperated and over 250 persons were transferred in and out of Romania to be the subject of investigations.
Investigations can be initiated by criminal complaint from the victim, through intimation from a third party (public authorities included), or ex officio.
The complaint and the intimation must follow specific rules (author, form, content, term of submission), whereas the ex officio is a self-intimation ordinance drafted by the prosecutor himself.
International criminal cooperation is one of Romania’s strong points in criminal enforcement, considering that, individually or as Member State of the EU, Romania is part of multiple international and European conventions or bilateral treaties that establish legal mechanisms for cooperation between enforcement authorities. At a national level, Law 302/2004 regulates the international judicial cooperation in criminal matters. INTERPOL, EUROPOL and the FBI have offices in Romania.
The government, through its criminal investigation authorities, has the power to gather any information or documents/material evidence from any person that might know something about the crime, either by testimonies or requests to provide information/documents/material evidence. Failure to comply can constitute a crime (art. 271 CC – obstruction of justice). Furthermore, the prosecutor can request and use surveillance, wiretappings or other special investigation methods to collect information.
If the criminal investigation authorities have reasonable suspicion that a person (companies included) is in possession of documents that might be necessary during a criminal investigation, they can demand those documents are provided, in exchange for a proof of surrender. However, they can also raid the headquarters if they believe the search could lead to discovery and collection of evidence related to a crime, to the preservation of evidence or to capturing a suspect/defendant. During the raid, the documents can be seized if the authorities have reasonable suspicion that they are related to the crime.
The client-attorney relationship is strictly privileged and confidential and derived documents or communications cannot be requested nor used (if obtained otherwise) as evidence by the authorities unless the attorney himself is suspected of having committed a crime. Technical supervision is also excluded.
As Romania is part of the European Union, GDPR produces all its effects, including exceptions. Thus, upon request of courts of law or prosecutors (national and foreign alike), producing information or documents is mandatory for all persons, under criminal sanction (obstruction of justice).
The rules for raids, search warrants and seizure of evidence are the same for individuals and companies.
Please see questions 7.2 and 7.5 above.
Any person can be questioned as a witness, whereas refusal to comply can lead to criminal prosecution (art. 273 CC). Suspects and defendants have the right to remain silent (invoking the privilege of self-incrimination) throughout the entire criminal process (investigation and trial alike), as granted by art. 78/83 Criminal Procedure Code (“CPC”).
The questioning usually takes place in the office of the prosecutor/police officer, except in special cases (e.g. hospital, jail, etc.). An oath must be taken. The questioning can be recorded (audio/video) and the testimony itself is mentioned in writing (computer-typed) and signed by the witness.
As mentioned in question 7.7, any person who has information about a crime can be summoned as a witness, typically at the PO/Police headquarters. This person has an obligation to be present at the date and place mentioned in the subpoena and to tell the truth.
Failure to be present can result in the issuance of an Enforced Presentation Order, when a police officer identifies and escorts a person to give testimony.
The right to be assisted (not represented!) by an attorney during questioning is expressly offered to the suspect, defendant, victim, civil party or civil liable party, whereas CPC can be interpreted to justify such possibility also in relation to witnesses (art. 31 and 34); however, many criminal investigation authorities consider the respective CPC articles as a flaw of corroboration with art. 88 CPC and, thus, prohibit legal assistance to witnesses during testimonies. The imminent legislative modifications will clear the issue and expressly grant attorney assistance privileges to witnesses also.
Refusal to testify/to answer questions as witness can lead to criminal prosecution (art. 273 CC). Failure to tell the truth can constitute false testimony (art. 273 CC) or, more severely, accessory after the fact (art. 269 CC). However, a witness cannot be coerced into testifying regarding aspects of which he has no recollection or is uncertain.
A witness can only refuse to testify (usually this happens during questioning) if he/she invokes the privilege of self-incrimination or is related to a suspect/defendant – spouse (or previous spouse), sibling or their direct ancestors or descendants.
If a person first testifies as witness in an investigation and, afterwards, is accused/charged regarding the respective deeds, the witness testimony must be removed from the file, along with all derived evidence obtained.
Invoking the privilege of self-incrimination cannot be used against the suspect/defendant (even if, many times in practice, this is considered as a negative personal circumstance).
Once the criminal authority is informed of a crime through complaint, intimation or self-intimation (and these comply with certain formal procedural requirements), the prosecutor initiates criminal investigation in rem (regarding the deed) if none of the cases that prevent the initiation and exercise of a criminal action exist (art. 16 CPC) and no matter if a person is named as a possible perpetrator. If reasonable suspicions arise/are confirmed against a certain person, then the criminal investigation is continued against that person, again through prosecutorial ordinance.
The main principles of the criminal investigation are “the pursuit of truth” (reason for which a prosecutor must obtain evidence both against and in favour of the suspect/defendant), “the presumption of innocence” (innocent until proven guilty – after a definitive appellate court decision) and “the mandatory performance of the criminal investigation” (the authorities are obligated to clarify the facts and circumstances of the case, based on evidence, and to start and exercise the criminal action when such evidence demonstrate that a crime has been committed by a certain person and no legal impediments exist).
As exceptions, the prosecutor can waive the exercise of the criminal action (drop the charges) if, considering the concrete elements of the case, there is no public interest in pursuing it further and must stop an investigation if the crime requires a preliminary complaint from the injured person and this is not formulated in the legal term of 90 days or is withdrawn.
Starting from February 1st, 2014, Deferred Prosecution Agreements (“DPA”) were introduced in CC (art. 478–488), along with a couple of procedural solutions better adapted to European and international requirements: in the criminal investigation phase – waiving the exercise of the criminal action (dropping criminal charges, art. 318 CPC) and, in the trial phase – waiving criminal punishment (art. 80–82 CC) and postponing the application of a punishment (art. 83–90 CPC).
In all situations, there are several conditions which must be met: a maximum punishment for the crime (five or seven years); certain circumstances of the deed/person; and the proportionality with the deed. Furthermore, the suspect/defendant can be obligated to comply with some supervision obligations (if the obligations are not complied with in bad faith, the prosecutor/judge can overturn the decision).
Yes, a Court must verify the legality and thoroughness of the Ordinance of the prosecutor to drop charges or to conclude a DPA and can dismiss it if it considers the solution to be too lenient or does not meet all legal (mainly formal) conditions.
The civil action of the damaged person against the defendant can be exercised either in the criminal investigation and trial, or through a separate civil action (tort liability). During any criminal procedure (investigation or trial) the suspect/defendant and the victim can draft a settlement or mediation agreement concerning the civil action.
The prosecutor has the burden of proof with regards to the criminal action. In a civil action, the damaged/civil party (who formulates demands) bears the burden of proof.
Should a defendant request administration of evidence, the prosecutor/court of law decide on their relevance and utility. Then, they proceed in obtaining it: allow the defendant to submit documents directly, obtain testimonies or documents from other persons/authorities, etc.
A person can be only convicted if the court is convinced that the charge was proven beyond any reasonable doubt.
The arbiter of facts is the Court of Law, which determines whether the burden of proof was satisfied or not and, consequently, can convict or should acquit the defendant.
Yes, a person who facilitates or helps the author in any way before or during the perpetration of the crime, as well as the person who promises, before or during the crime, that they will buy the assets originating from the crime or that they will help the author in any way is an accomplice to that crime (art. 48 CC). A person who, with direct intent, determines another to commit a crime is considered an instigator (art. 47 CC). Both are criminally liable within the same punishment limits as the author of the crime (even if the author commits the act without intent).
An accessory after the fact (art. 269 CC) is the person who helps the perpetrator, after the crime, for the purposes of preventing or hindering the investigation, criminal liability, serving the sentence or a custodial measure. A fence (art. 270) is a person who receives and sells stolen goods, knowing or foreseeing, based on concrete circumstances, that the assets originate from criminal activities. Both are punishable with imprisonment (yet this cannot exceed the sentence of the author).
Moreover, a person can be liable for the crime of initiating, creating, adhering or supporting an organised criminal group, in cases in which a crime itself is committed even before the originally intended crime.
Guilt is one of the key elements of a crime (art. 15 CC), the reason for which either intent or negligence must exist and consequently be proven (by the accusation) for each crime (art. 16 CC), as each incrimination requires.
It is possible to defend against criminal charges by showing that there was either no criminal intent or there was just negligence (in cases in which the crime can either be a lesser one, or the deed may not be incriminated at all).
CC regulates (art. 30) the error as an exonerating circumstance, which incurs when the perpetrator did not know of the existence of a status, situation or fact which determines the criminal nature of a deed. Furthermore, ignorance of a legal stipulation (other than part of the criminal law) can also be claimed. The burden of proof belongs to the defendant.
As above, the defendant must prove lack or impossibility of knowledge.
Failure to report (art. 266 CC and other special norms) applies to any person who does not inform the criminal investigation authorities about the perpetration of a crime of a certain gravity (e.g. crimes against the life of others, crimes resulting in the death of a person, crimes against national security). Family members of the author(s) are exempted. Public servants and persons/officials having controlling duties also have reporting obligations if they become aware of the commission of a crime during their service or, respectively, regarding persons or controlled activities.
Furthermore, a person can, for some crimes (e.g. giving a bribe, buying influence) not be criminally charged if he reports the crime before the authorities become informed of it, whereas, in all other cases, acknowledgment of guilt can result in a reduction of the sanctioning limits by ⅓.
Additionally, the participant (instigator or accomplice) of any crime can avoid sanction if, before the deed is discovered, he denounces it, so that the consummation of the crime can be prevented, or if he prevents himself from the consummation of the crime.
Lastly, voluntary disclosure of other crimes (not known to the authorities and committed by other persons) could also be rewarded (art. 19 Law 682/2002) with a reduction of the punishment limits by half. Imminent criminal laws intend to reduce this possibility to crimes perpetrated more recently than one year before the intimation.
As mentioned above, voluntary disclosure or cooperation may lead to total or partial immunity from criminal investigation/sanction.
Furthermore, cooperation in any investigation (even in one where the defendant does not acknowledge guilt) can also be considered as mitigating circumstances, with the effect of a reduction of the sanctioning limits by a third. Cooperation can also be considered the settlement of the prejudice, with the important exception of tax evasion, where payment in full results in a reduction by a half of sanctioning limits (or up to full immunity for tax evasions lower than EUR 100,000 committed before March 2013).
Cooperation can range from providing the authorities with requested information/documents and up to full admission of guilt, with the consequences mentioned previously.
In all cases of admission of guilt, a DPA could be concluded with the prosecutor (as per the request of the defendant) or a simplified “admission of guilt” court procedure could be requested (to the court of law), which usually results in lesser punishments since sanction limits are automatically reduced by ⅓ and punishments tend to be oriented towards a minimum, or in the whereabouts, plus the highly likely benefit (if final sanction is below three years’ imprisonment) of not actually doing jail time.
As mentioned in section 8 above, DPAs are a possibility in the Romanian criminal system after February 1st, 2014 (no matter what the perpetration date of the crime). However, DPAs can only refer to an agreed-upon sentence (which still has to be confirmed by a judge, for legality) and cannot reduce the charges (from more to less severe crimes or disproving lesser crimes altogether, like in other jurisdictions).
Please see section 8 above.
There are several particularities to the criminal condemnation of a moral person (art. 135 CC): the punishment can only consist of a fine (the “fine-days” system), whereas there are specific ancillary punishments (disclosure of condemnation in the media, closure of operation locations for certain periods of time, forbiddance to participate in public tenders, suspension of activity, and dissolution of the company).
To be held criminally liable (as mentioned in section 4 above), a corporation must not be part of the public domain (public institution). Insolvent/bankrupt companies, until judicial dissolution, can be held criminally liable.
Yes, any verdict is appealable by the parties of the file (defendant, prosecutor, injured person/civil party, civil liable party).
The appeal phase is characterised by the following principles: the suspensive effect (appealing a sentence suspends its effects); the speciality principle (the court is bound to examine the case only with respect to the person who appealed it and the person referred to in the appeal, but under all relevant aspects related to the facts and the law); the non reformatio in pejus principle (the court cannot create a more difficult situation for the appellant); and the extensive effect (the court shall extensively examine the case also regarding parties which did not file for appeal or to whom it does not refer, if it thus improves their procedural situation).
The appellate court must examine all relevant evidence obtained in the criminal investigation phase and first court procedure but can also request new evidence (within the limits of the appeal).
The appellate courts can reverse the ruling of the first court and issue a new ruling regarding both the criminal and civil action, with full powers (within the limits of the appeal). The only exception is that, if a defendant was acquitted in first court, a condemnation can only be ordered if new evidence is provided in support of his guilt (condemnation cannot be ordered just on sheer re-interpretation of evidence obtained before).
Moreover, the appellate courts can order a retrial by the first court in case of summoning/subpoena incidents regarding the defendant; oversight of solutioning charges or claims; or absolute nullity cases.

References: art. 134
 art. 279
 art. 271
 art. 321
 art. 240
 art. 134

Art. 295

Art. 5

Art. 65

Art. 98

Art. 385
 art. 13
 art. 120
 art. 134
 art. 249
 art. 250
 art. 360
 art. 78
 art. 88
 art. 318