What followed the finding that the indictment was unclear?
In this case, the Bucharest Court of Appeal found the description of the alleged conduct irregular and ordered communication of its ruling to the prosecution for correction. The issue was the contradiction between the alleged acts. This procedural step does not, by itself, amount to an acquittal or a final return of the case to the prosecution.
In an influence-peddling case in which we provided assistance and representation, the Bucharest Court of Appeal found the indictment irregular because its description of the alleged act was ambiguous, contradictory and insufficient in relation to the offence’s legal elements.
Identifying the offence and then reproducing evidence does not make an accusation clear. The indictment must explain the alleged conduct and why it is said to constitute that offence. In this case, several pages summarising evidence did not resolve a contradiction in the accusation itself.
Two incompatible accounts of the same demand
One part of the indictment alleged that money had been demanded so that the defendant would place a person on the list of participants in an event. Another alleged that the money was demanded for intervention with members of a central structure so that the person would be registered and selected.
The Court found those accounts mutually exclusive as formulated. If the defendant was to perform the registration personally, the accusation needed to clarify whether this fell within the defendant’s own duties. If the allegation concerned intervention with others, it needed to identify the alleged influence, the relevant people and their decision-making responsibilities.
It could not remain unclear whether the benefit was sought for exercising one’s own function or influencing someone else who held that function. That distinction concerned the structure of the criminal accusation.
Influence peddling or taking a bribe?
The Court observed that the account could suggest either offence. Its task in the preliminary chamber was not to settle the final legal classification. Classification can be discussed and changed through the legally prescribed procedure. The problem was the contradictory description of what had allegedly happened.
In the distinction relevant here, taking a bribe concerned a benefit linked to an act within the accused person’s own responsibilities. Influence peddling concerned a benefit for intervention with another person in relation to that person’s responsibilities. The indictment did not explain who had the relevant authority or whether responsibilities were shared.
If two offences could coexist on particular facts, the factual account needed to explain that. It could not leave the issue to later inference.
Evidence cannot replace the factual accusation
An indictment may begin with a concise account followed by analysis of evidence, provided the account is itself clear and consistent with the stated legal classification. Here, the material was essentially summarised rather than analysed to resolve the conflicting versions.
The judge could not be left to choose whether the prosecution alleged direct action by the defendant or intervention with other decision-makers. A court is seised by the indictment. It cannot complete an unclear accusation by selecting among alternatives left open by the prosecutor.
This relates to another case concerning defects in the referral to trial.
The indictment determines the scope of trial
Article 328(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure requires the indictment to state the alleged act and its legal classification. A clear account tells the court what it must examine and enables the defence to understand precisely what it must answer.
Without that clarity, the defendant may be forced to respond to competing hypotheses about personal authority and influence over others without knowing how the prosecution connects them. The Bucharest Court of Appeal therefore found the referral irregular and ordered communication of its ruling to the prosecution for correction within the period prescribed by Article 345.
This result concerned the adequacy of the indictment. It was not an acquittal. Serious accusations still require precision before trial, including identification of the alleged benefit, the relevant decision-maker and the relationship between their roles.
See also the practice’s influence-peddling defence service.
Questions and clarifications
Can a list of evidence replace a clear description of the alleged conduct?
In the case examined, the summary of evidence did not resolve the contradiction between two versions of the charge. The indictment must identify the conduct for which the defendant is sent to trial.
Does an irregularity ruling decide guilt?
No. This article concerns the regularity of the indictment and the correction procedure. It does not describe the ruling as an acquittal.
Sources and scope of the outcome
The account follows the outcome reported by the practice. General preliminary-chamber rules should not be confused with a later outcome that the article does not report.
Author: Rareș Rotaru. Attorney at law, Bucharest Bar. Editorial update: