Corruption defence in Romania
Corruption cases are among the most demanding criminal proceedings: technical evidence, media pressure, and major professional and personal stakes.
Offenses covered
- Bribe-taking (Art. 289 Criminal Code) and bribe-giving (Art. 290);
- Influence peddling (Art. 291) and buying influence (Art. 292);
- Offenses assimilated to and connected with corruption, including those within the competence of the DNA.
What makes these cases distinctive
Such cases are frequently built on denunciations, recordings, staged flagrante delicto operations and interceptions. Each of these means of evidence is subject to strict legality requirements — and rigorous scrutiny of those requirements, in the preliminary chamber and at trial, is often where the case is decided.
Equally important is the analysis of the constitutive elements: not every benefit and not every promise meets the conditions of the criminal law, and the distinction between a criminal act and one that falls short of that threshold is demonstrated technically, not rhetorically.
How I work
Assistance from the investigation stage — during questioning, upon notification of suspect or defendant status, on preventive measures — and representation at every level of jurisdiction. See also the page on DNA proceedings.
How Romanian corruption law is structured
On top of the Criminal Code offences of taking a bribe, giving a bribe, influence peddling and buying influence, Law no. 78/2000 adds three further layers that change both classification and penalty.
- Aggravated forms, where the offence is committed by persons holding certain positions, including officials, judges, prosecutors, investigating bodies, and persons with powers to record or sanction administrative offences.
- Offences assimilated to corruption, art. 10 to 13, including financial operations incompatible with one's office, use of information not intended for the public, and use of influence deriving from a leadership position in a political party to obtain undue benefits.
- Offences directly connected to corruption offences, a category that widens the case to related conduct.
What recent case law has narrowed
By Decision no. 327/2025, delivered on 22 September 2025 and published in Official Gazette no. 941 of 10 October 2025, the High Court of Cassation and Justice significantly restricted one of the assimilated offences. For art. 12 (1) (a) first sentence, carrying out economic operations as acts of commerce incompatible with one's office constitutes the offence only if the further condition of using information obtained by virtue of that office is also met. Mere incompatibility is no longer enough.
By Decision no. 458/2017, the Constitutional Court found art. 15 of Law no. 78/2000, read with art. 13 index 2, unconstitutional as regards abuse of office, so attempt at abuse of office in its assimilated form can no longer be punished on that basis.
Where the defence is built
- The link between the act and the duties of the office, a condition of most classifications.
- The line between influence peddling and fraud, which depends on whether the influence claimed actually existed.
- In flagrante cases, what money and recordings actually prove. I have written at length on this in the analysis of a final acquittal.
- The competence of the investigating body, with the absolute nullity regime explained on the DNA proceedings page.
Working with a client based abroad
Proceedings are conducted in Romanian and an interpreter is provided by the authorities, but the practical work happens before that. Documents, correspondence and strategy discussions are handled with you in English, then filed in Romanian. A lawyer holding a mandate can represent you at most procedural stages, so not every hearing requires you to travel. Where your presence is required, the date is known in advance and travel can be planned.
If a preventive measure is in place, judicial supervision may include an obligation not to leave the country or a specified area. That obligation can be challenged and can be modified during the proceedings, which is one of the first things to address for a non-resident client.
Corruption cases.
No. Influence peddling requires a claim of real or supposed influence over an official, together with the receipt of money or another benefit in order to have that official act in a particular way. A genuine consultancy contract, actually performed, does not meet those elements, and this is where most such cases are decided.
No. The presence of money and the existence of recordings prove a transfer and a conversation. They do not, by themselves, prove the elements of the offence, in particular the claim of influence and the agreement about the official act. That distinction is what produced the final acquittal analysed on this site.
Yes, Romanian criminal law applies to conduct on Romanian territory regardless of nationality. Where EU funds are involved, the case may also fall to the European Public Prosecutor, which is dealt with separately.
It can, but the assessment must be made against what is actually in the file, not against what the investigation suggests it holds. Voluntary disclosures made before the file has been read frequently create liability that would not otherwise have been established.
Related articles
- Preliminary chamber: annulling the referral act
- Influence peddling acquittal in a flagrante delicto case
- Energy Holding acquittal and the standard of proof
The content of this page is for information purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For your specific situation, please arrange a consultation.