On 30 June 2026 the Bucharest Court of Appeal brought a criminal case worth almost 60 million lei to a final close, upholding the acquittal handed down at first instance for my client, a former finance director of Energy Holding. The appellate court dismissed as unfounded the appeals of both the Public Ministry and the civil party.
Beyond the figures, the case raises a central question for economic criminal practice: to what extent can an unfinished, unclear or subsequently disputed commercial transaction be turned, in the absence of certain proof, into the offense of embezzlement.
The charge: alleged embezzlement of 59.4 million lei
The case concerned seven bank transfers made between 2009 and 2010 by Energy Holding to a manufacturer of hydropower equipment, totalling 59,480,839 lei. On the prosecution's case, the payments had been made without genuine consideration, on the basis of allegedly fictitious commercial transactions. The investigation file ran to more than 64 volumes, and more than eight and a half years passed between the charge and the final decision.
The missing piece: fictitiousness was never proven
The entire prosecution case rested on the premise that the commercial relationship had been fictitious. That element was never proven. The Bucharest Tribunal expressly held that the fictitious character of the commercial relations had not been established beyond reasonable doubt, and the Court of Appeal confirmed that there was no evidence attesting to the fictitious nature of the transactions.
A contract requested eleven years later
A key point of the defense concerned the contract relied on in the case. The commercial relationship dated from 2009, yet the document was requested by the investigating authorities only in 2020 — some eleven years later. On that basis, the prosecution built part of its case on the possible physical non-existence of the contract.
The courts rejected that reasoning. The Tribunal held that a mere reference to a contract that could not be located in its physical form cannot found the offense of embezzlement, and the Court of Appeal held that the physical absence of the contract is not, in itself, sufficient evidence to conclude that the legal relationship did not exist. Witness evidence confirmed, on the contrary, the existence of genuine commercial relations in the energy equipment sector.
Presumption is not proof
The Tribunal warned against deciding an economic criminal case on a presumption generated by bank transfers alone. Treating the absence of subsequent consideration as automatically equivalent to an unjustified transfer, and therefore to embezzlement, would mean deciding the case on a presumption drawn solely from financial transactions. In criminal matters, presumptions cannot substitute for proof.
What embezzlement actually requires
On the substantive law, the courts recalled that embezzlement requires an act of misappropriation — removing the asset from the protected patrimony and taking it into the offender's own possession, behaving as an owner — not merely the existence of high-value payments. Here, the transfers had been carried out within the company's internal approval circuit, with prior verification and authorisation by several people holding decision-making powers. That circumstance, considered essential, excluded any unilateral act of misappropriation.
The acquittal was ordered under Art. 396(5) in conjunction with Art. 16(1)(b) first limb of the Criminal Procedure Code — the act is not provided for by criminal law.
A telling choice: continuing the trial
One detail says a great deal about my client's position: during the proceedings, the limitation period for criminal liability expired. She nonetheless asked for the trial to continue, choosing a decision on the merits — an acquittal confirming her innocence — over the closure of the case by limitation. That is the difference between escaping a case and winning it.
What remains from this case
The conclusion goes beyond the individual matter: in an economic criminal case, pointing to large payments is not a substitute for proof. The gravity of the charge and the size of the sums involved do not lower the standard of proof. The burden of proving the case beyond reasonable doubt rests entirely with the prosecution — and where it is not met, acquittal is not a favour, but the ordinary consequence of the law.
A comparable question on the completeness of evidential analysis arose in a final acquittal for influence peddling, in a case involving a staged flagrante delicto operation.
Rareș Rotaru, Attorney at Law, Bucharest Bar
This article is for information purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Every case is different; past results are not a promise as to the outcome of any other case.