The cases covered
Property offences under Title II of the Criminal Code range from theft to complex economic fraud. They differ in severity and defence strategy, while sharing protection of another person’s property interests. Related allegations such as embezzlement require examination of their separate statutory framework.
The practice assists in cases involving theft and aggravated theft under Articles 228 and 229, robbery under Article 233, fraud under Article 244 and insurance fraud under Article 245, breach of trust under Article 238, defrauding creditors under Article 239, fraudulent management under Article 242, destruction under Article 253 and disturbance of possession under Article 256. Embezzlement under Article 295 is addressed separately.
The distinctions that shape the defence
Criminal fraud or a civil dispute. Failure to perform a contract is not automatically fraud. The alleged deception and intention must be established in the particular transaction. Later commercial difficulties do not by themselves prove an original fraudulent plan.
Breach of trust or fraudulent management. The relevant questions include how the property was entrusted, the person’s responsibilities and whether the allegation concerns appropriation or harmful management. Theft or breach of trust likewise depends on how the property came into the person’s possession and the conduct alleged.
Loss and legal classification. The amount and method of calculation can affect liability, sentencing and, under specific statutory conditions, jurisdiction. A large loss does not by itself make every case a DIICOT matter. The alleged organised group and other jurisdictional conditions must be examined.
Intent, documents and asset measures
The defence examines the existence and extent of loss against documents, the person’s intention, legal classification and the proportionality of asset-securing measures. A commercial dispute should not become a criminal case merely because a dissatisfied contracting party has filed a complaint.
Depending on the offence, reconciliation or withdrawal of a prior complaint may affect criminal liability. Their availability, deadlines and formal requirements must be assessed specifically. A private understanding should not be assumed to end proceedings automatically.
How I work
I provide assistance during investigation, challenges to asset measures, review of the legality of evidence in the preliminary chamber, and defence at trial and on appeal. Early analysis identifies both the appropriate substantive defence and any legally available settlement route.
Related services include criminal defence, tax evasion, money laundering and cybercrime. Read our account of a final acquittal in an embezzlement case involving almost RON 60 million for a discussion of the standard of proof.