Not every tax debt is tax evasion, and an adverse ANAF inspection does not automatically lead to criminal liability. The distinction between an accounting irregularity and an offence often turns on intent.
What criminal law requires
The relevant forms of tax evasion under Law no. 241/2005 involve conduct aimed at evading tax obligations, such as concealing taxable sources, recording fictitious transactions or altering accounting records. For these offences, the purpose of evasion must be established. A tax loss alone is insufficient.
Where confusion arises
Romanian tax legislation is extensive, frequently amended and sometimes open to interpretation. Misclassifying an expense, applying a deduction on a reasonable interpretation later rejected by the tax authority, or an entry error can produce additional tax liabilities. Those liabilities are addressed through assessment and, where appropriate, a tax challenge. Criminal liability requires proof of the relevant intentional conduct.
Building the defence
Documents are central. Accounting records, expert reports, correspondence with authorities and professional advice obtained at the time help establish what the accused knew and intended. Court-appointed accounting expertise can be decisive because the calculation of the alleged loss may be open to challenge. Correcting it can affect both the legal classification and its consequences.
Payment of the alleged loss
Payment can have significant consequences for criminal liability, including reduced sentencing limits or other forms of mitigation, depending on the law applicable to the act and the timing of payment. It is a strategic decision to assess with counsel and on verified figures, rather than under pressure.
This article is for general information, not legal advice for a particular case. Arrange a discussion to assess your circumstances.