Can I be charged with laundering the proceeds of my own offence?

Under art. 49 (1) (c), acquiring, possessing or using assets is an offence when committed by a person other than the perpetrator of the predicate offence. For paragraphs (a) and (b) the position is different and depends on whether a distinct act of concealment is established, which is one of the principal lines of defence.

The prosecution says the transaction was unusual. Is that enough?

No. Art. 49 (4) requires knowledge of the origin of the assets to be established from objective factual circumstances. An atypical transaction is a starting point for investigation, not proof of the mental element.

Tax evasion is charged as well. Will the state confiscate and also claim the tax?

It should not. High Court Decision no. 23/2017 held that special confiscation of sums deriving from the evasion is not to be ordered concurrently with an order to pay the tax owed. Verifying this point often reduces exposure considerably.

Money Laundering Defence in Romania

Q: The predicate offence took place in another country. Does Romanian law still apply?

Yes. Art. 49 (5) and (6) extend application regardless of whether the predicate offence was committed in Romania or abroad, and for Romanian nationals and legal persons even where the conduct is not criminal in the state where it took place.

Scope of practice

The offense of money laundering under Art. 49 of Law no. 129/2019;
The relationship with the predicate offense — an essential element of the charge;
Precautionary measures: seizure of accounts and assets, special and extended confiscation.

Where such a case is won or lost

The prosecution must establish the criminal origin of the assets and knowledge of that origin. The mere movement of funds — transfers, withdrawals, purchases — is not money laundering. The defense reconstructs the financial trail with documents and expert evidence, separates legitimate operations from those charged, and rigorously tests how the prosecution established the link to the predicate offense.

Precautionary measures are a separate and urgent front: a disproportionate seizure can paralyse a company or a family for years before any final ruling. Challenging them in good time is part of the strategy.

Context

These cases frequently intersect with tax evasion and with DIICOT proceedings.

The three forms of the offence

Art. 49 (1) of Law no. 129/2019 punishes three distinct courses of conduct with three to ten years' imprisonment:

(a) converting or transferring assets, knowing they derive from criminal offences, for the purpose of concealing or disguising their unlawful origin, or of helping the offender evade prosecution;
(b) concealing or disguising the true nature, source, location, disposition, movement or ownership of assets, knowing their criminal origin;
(c) acquiring, possessing or using assets by a person other than the perpetrator of the predicate offence, knowing their origin.

Attempt is punishable. Commission by a reporting entity in the exercise of its professional activity is an aggravating circumstance, introduced by Law no. 102/2021.

Knowledge of origin decides the case

Art. 49 (4) provides expressly that knowledge of the origin of the assets, or the purpose pursued, must be established from objective factual circumstances. This is the most important provision for the defence, because it prohibits inferring the mental element from the mere existence of an atypical transaction. The prosecution must point to concrete circumstances, not to probability reasoning.

Paragraphs (5) and (6) extend application regardless of whether the predicate offence was committed in Romania or abroad, and for Romanian nationals and legal persons even where the conduct is not an offence in the state where it occurred.

Confiscation where tax evasion is also charged

By Decision no. 23/2017, published in Official Gazette no. 878 of 8 November 2017, the High Court held that where money laundering is charged concurrently with tax evasion, special confiscation of the laundered sums deriving from the evasion is not to be ordered at the same time as the defendants are ordered to pay the tax owed to the state. The state cannot collect the same sum twice. In cases where both charges are brought, checking this frequently produces a substantial reduction in financial exposure.

The relationship with the predicate offence

The defence is built on two levels. The first is the existence of the offence from which the assets are said to derive: without a proven predicate, laundering has no object. The second is autonomy, namely whether the conduct complained of is a distinct act of concealment or simply the ordinary use of a benefit, in which case a separate offence cannot be established.

See also the pages on tax evasion, the most frequent predicate offence, and on DNA proceedings, which since 2024 may investigate laundering autonomously where the assets derive from offences within the Directorate's remit.

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.

Money laundering defence in Romania