Romania is party to the following international conventions:

• the OECD Anti-Bribery Convention (Paris, 21 November 1997), ratified by Law No 202 from 5 July 2023, entered into force on 22 September 2023;
• the United Nations Convention against Corruption (New York, 31 October 2003) ratified by Law No 365 from 15 September 2004;
• the Criminal Law Convention on Corruption (Strasbourg, 27 January 1999) ratified by Law No 27 from 16 January 2002;
• the Civil Law Convention on Corruption (Strasbourg, 4 November 1999) ratified by Law No 147 from 1 April 2002; and
• the Convention drawn up on the basis of Article K.3(2)(c) of the Treaty of the European Union on the fight against corruption involving officials of the European Communities or officials of Member States of the European Union (26 May 1997), entered into force on 28 September 2005, through an EU Council decision by which Romania is expected to adhere to the European Union (EU).

Romanian law addresses corruption mainly through the provisions of the Criminal Code, namely in the Special Section, Title V – Corruption and Occupational Offences. In this title, the legislature defines:

• various acts constituting offences of bribery;
• trafficking/purchasing influence; and
• offences committed by individuals in the exercise of their official duties.

Also, Article 5 of Law No 78/2000 regarding the prevention, discovery and sanctioning of corruption acts states that corruption offences include those offences provided for in Articles 289–292 of the Criminal Code (bribery, influence-peddling), even when committed by persons referred to in Article 308 of the Criminal Code. As such, this applies whenever the acts are committed by persons assimilated to civil servants – namely persons fulfilling, permanently or temporarily, with or without pay, a task of any kind on behalf of an individual as defined by Article 175 paragraph (2) Criminal Code, who perform a service of public interest for which such individuals are vested by the public authorities or are subject to the public authorities’ control or supervision as regards the fulfilment of such public service (also within any legal entity – ie, private sector).

This law also includes crimes assimilated to corruption offences as described in Articles 10–13.

There are no guidelines for the interpretation or enforcement of national legislation. However, Romanian courts adhere to the interpretations provided by the High Court of Cassation and Justice and the reasoning of decisions of the Constitutional Court.

In some cases, the courts also refer to the interpretation provided by specialised legal literature regarding certain aspects related to the fulfilment of the constituent elements of the offence.

A substantial change can be observed regarding the offence of abuse of office provided by Article 297 paragraph (1) of the Criminal Code.

In its initial form, this offence was defined as the act of a public official who, in the exercise of official duties, fails to perform an act or performs it defectively, thereby causing damage or harm to the rights or legitimate interests of an individual or legal entity. The Constitutional Court, in Decision No 405/2016, found that the provisions of Article 297(1) are constitutional to the extent that the phrase “performs defectively” is understood as “performs in violation of the law”.

With Law No 200/2023, the legislature considered the arguments of the constitutional court, in the sense that non-performance or defective performance of an act should be analysed only in relation to duties expressly regulated by primary legislation – laws and government ordinances.

As a result, the current definition of abuse of office is the following: “the act of a public official who, in the exercise of official duties, fails to perform an act provided by a law, a government ordinance, an emergency government ordinance, or another normative act that, at the time of adoption, had the force of law, or performs it in violation of a provision contained in such a normative act, thereby causing damage or harm to the rights or legitimate interests of an individual or legal entity.”

The Romanian Criminal Code provides for distinct offences of giving bribes and accepting bribes.

Accepting bribes is the act of a public official who, directly or indirectly, for oneself or for another, demands or receives money or other benefits that are not due or accepts the promise of such benefits, in connection with the performance, non-performance or delayed performance of an act within the scope of their official duties or in connection with the performance of an act contrary to these duties. The act committed by one of the persons mentioned in Article 175 paragraph (2) constitutes an offence only when committed in connection with the non-performance or delayed performance of an act related to their legal duties, or in connection with the performance of an act contrary to these duties.

An act consisting of a promise, an offer or giving of money or other benefits, under the conditions mentioned above, constitutes the offence of giving a bribe.

Therefore, in addition to money, any other undeserved benefits, such as gifts or expenses, can fall within this category and may be susceptible to forming the means of achieving the objective aspect of the mentioned offences.

A public official is defined in Article 175 paragraph (1) of the Criminal Code as a person who, on a permanent or temporary basis, with or without remuneration:

• exercises the duties and responsibilities, set out under the law, to implement the prerogatives of the legislative, executive or judiciary branches;
• exercises a function of public dignity or a public office irrespective of its nature; and
• exercises, alone or jointly with other persons, within a public utility company, another economic operator or a legal entity owned by the State alone or whose majority shareholder is the State, responsibilities needed to carry out the activity of the entity.

Paragraph (2) of the same article states that, in the criminal law sense, a public official is considered a person that supplies a public-interest service, with which they have been vested by the public authorities or who shall be subject to the latter’s control or supervision with respect to carrying out such public service.

Article 294 of the Criminal Code incriminates acts committed by foreign officials or those related to them, providing that the corruption offences also apply to the following persons (unless the international agreements to which Romania is a party provide otherwise):

• officials or persons who carry out their activity based on a labour agreement, or other persons with similar duties in an international public organisation to which Romania is a party;
• members of parliamentary assemblies of international organisations to which Romania is a party;
• officials or persons who carry out their activities based on a labour agreement, or other persons with similar duties within the EU;
• persons who exercise judicial functions within the international courts whose jurisdiction is accepted by Romania, as well as officials working for the registrar’s office of such courts;
• officials of a foreign state;
• members of parliamentary or administrative assemblies of a foreign state; and
• jurors within foreign courts.

The commission of acts constituting the offences of giving or accepting bribes also applies to the private sector, with the only difference being that the legislature has provided that penalty limits are reduced by one third in such cases.

Similar to the bribery offences, the Romanian Criminal Code provides for two separate offences related to influence-peddling – ie, trafficking of influence and buying influence.

The offence of trafficking of influence consists in claiming, receiving or accepting promises of money or other benefits, directly or indirectly, for oneself or for another person, committed by a person having influence or pretending to have influence over a public official, and who promises to induce the public official to perform, not to perform or defer the performance of an act concerning their professional duties, or to perform an act which is contrary to such duties.

Buying influence is the correlative offence for trafficking of influence, and consists of the promise, offer or giving of money or other benefits, directly or indirectly, to a person who has influence or gives the impression of having influence over a public official, with the purpose of persuading the official to perform, not perform, expedite or delay the performance of an act falling within their official duties, or to perform an act contrary to these duties.

Correspondingly, influence-peddling of foreign public officials is also criminalised.

Law No 31/1990 on commercial companies provides several specific actions that can result in an offence and that can be committed by the founder, administrator, general manager, director, member of the supervisory board or directorate, or the legal representative of a company.

However, if the actions specified in this law constitute more serious offences according to the Criminal Code or other specific laws, such as embezzlement or abuse of office, they are sanctioned with the penalties provided by the latter.

Misappropriation of funds is regulated by the Criminal Code, and consists of changing the destination of monetary funds or material resources allocated to a public authority or public institution without adhering to legal provisions. Additionally, changing the destination of funds obtained or guaranteed from public funds without adhering to legal provisions constitutes the same offence.

Embezzlement by a public official consists of the appropriation, use or trafficking by a public official, in their own interest or for another, of money, valuables or other assets that they manage or administer.

The use of one’s position to favour certain individuals is also regulated, constituting the act of a public official who, in the performance of official duties, has carried out an action resulting in a financial gain for oneself, one’s spouse, a relative or an in-law up to and including in the second degree.

After the decision to commit the offence of accepting a bribe, the person designated by the perpetrator to act as an intermediary between them and the briber will be considered an accomplice to the act of bribery. If the initiative for taking the bribe originated from the intermediary, they will be considered an instigator to the bribery offence.

Similarly, in the case of influence-peddling carried out through an intermediary, the latter may be considered an accomplice to the offence or even an instigator.

The general statute of limitations for accepting a bribe is eight years, regardless of whether the bribe is taken by a public official or in the private sector.

For the offences of giving a bribe, trafficking of influence, buying influence, abuse of office and embezzlement, the limitation period is eight years for public officials and five years for the private sector.

For the offences of misappropriation of funds and use of one’s position to favour certain individuals, the limitation period is five years, both for public officials and for the private sector.

The running of the statute of limitations for criminal liability is interrupted by the completion of any procedural act which, according to the law, must be communicated to the suspect or the defendant. The limitation periods will be deemed fulfilled, regardless of any interruptions, if the general time limit has been exceeded once again.

Based on the principle of personality, Romanian criminal law also applies to offences committed outside the country by a Romanian citizen or a Romanian legal entity if the penalty prescribed by Romanian law is life imprisonment or imprisonment exceeding ten years. In the other cases, Romanian criminal law applies to offences committed outside the territory of the country by a Romanian citizen or a Romanian legal entity if the act is considered a crime under the criminal law of the country where it was committed, or if it occurred in a place not subject to the jurisdiction of any state.

According to Article 10 of the Criminal Code, Romanian Criminal Law applies to crimes committed outside the territory of the country by a foreign citizen or a person without citizenship, against the Romanian State, a Romanian citizen or a Romanian legal entity.

Furthermore, Romanian criminal law applies to offences, other than those provided in Article 10, committed outside the country by a foreign citizen or a stateless person who is voluntarily present in the territory of Romania, in the following cases:

• where an offence has been committed that the Romanian State has undertaken to prosecute based on an international treaty, whether or not it is prescribed by the criminal law of the state on whose territory it was committed; and
• where extradition or surrender of the offender has been requested and refused.

A legal entity, with the exception of the State and public authorities, incurs criminal liability for offences committed in the pursuit of its objectives or in the interest or on behalf of the legal entity. Therefore, the criminal liability of a legal entity, alongside that of the natural person, is not excluded if these conditions are met.

In the case of the loss of legal personality through merger, absorption or division occurring after the commission of the offence, criminal liability and its consequences shall be borne by:

• the legal entity created through merger;
• the absorbing legal entity; and
• the legal entities created through division or that have acquired fractions of the assets of the divided entity.

The criminal law does not provide details of the defences that could be invoked in any type of criminal case.

Criminal prosecution authorities can take action and carry out the necessary activities to resolve a case only based on a legally prepared notification, thus allowing for the control and elimination of any potential abuses that could occur, in close correlation with other measures and procedural guarantees provided by the legislature to the parties.

Usually, in the case of corruption offences, criminal prosecution authorities are informed about the initiation of criminal proceedings through a denunciation act, and must comply with the content and form provided by the Code of Criminal Procedure. Therefore, a first line of defence can start with analysis of the notification submitted to the criminal prosecution authorities.

Another defence invoked in many such cases pertains to the clarity of the accusation. This represents a fundamental right guaranteed by Article 6(3)(a) of the European Convention on Human Rights (hereinafter, ECHR) and implies informing the accused in detail about the cause and nature of the accusation, including the acts they are accused of and their legal classification.

Proper fulfilment of this requirement is essential as it forms the foundation of the entire process. Without it, other fundamental rights, such as the right to a defence, cannot be properly exercised, ultimately affecting the fairness of the procedure itself.

For the offence of giving a bribe, the provisions of the Criminal Code stipulate that the act does not constitute an offence when the briber has been coerced by any means by the person who accepted the bribe.

The coercion of the briber to commit bribery is a specific ground for non-imputability, involving the pressure exerted by the person who accepted the bribe on the one giving the bribe. Unlike the general conditions for non-imputability provided by the Penal Code, such as physical or moral coercion, the coercion of the briber can be achieved by any means and does not need to be irresistible.

There are no de minimis exceptions provided by law with regard to the previously discussed offences.

The State and public authorities are not subject to criminal liability. Nevertheless, public institutions, as distinct entities, are not universally immune from criminal responsibility. Exemption from criminal liability for these entities specifically pertains to actions conducted within the realm of public activities that cannot be equally undertaken by private entities governed by private law.

Regarding the offence of giving a bribe, the provisions of the Criminal Code state that the briber would not be punished if they report the act before the criminal prosecution authorities have been notified about it. A similar provision is applicable for the offence of buying influence.

The full restitution of the material damage caused by the offence during the criminal investigation or the trial, up to the first trial date, constitutes a legal mitigating circumstance. Additionally, the following may constitute judicial mitigating circumstances:

• the efforts made by the offender to eliminate or reduce the consequences of the offence; and
• circumstances related to the committed act that decrease the severity of the offence or the dangerousness of the offender.

The effects of these mitigating circumstances consist of a one-third reduction in the statutory penalty limits for the committed offence.

Penalties Applicable to Individuals

For the offence of taking a bribe, the punishment ranges between three and ten years of imprisonment; while for the correlated offence of giving a bribe, the punishment ranges between two and seven years of imprisonment.

Additionally, for offences such as influence-trafficking, influence-buying, embezzlement and abuse of office, the punishment limits are between two and seven years of imprisonment.

The offences of misappropriation of funds and use of one’s position to favour certain individuals are punishable by one to five years of imprisonment.

Penalties Applicable to Legal Entities

The main penalty applicable to a legal entity is a fine, and the amount of the fine is determined through the day-fine system.

The amount corresponding to one day-fine is between RON100 and RON5,000, and is multiplied by the number of day-fines established by the court based on general criteria for individualising the penalty.

The special limits of day-fines are as follows:

• 60 to 180 day-fines when the law provides only a fine as punishment for the committed offence;
• 120 to 240 day-fines when the law provides imprisonment for up to five years, either as a sole punishment or alternatively with a fine;
• 180 to 300 day-fines when the law provides imprisonment for up to ten years;
• 240 to 420 day-fines when the law provides imprisonment for up to 20 years; and
• 360 to 510 day-fines when the law provides imprisonment exceeding 20 years or life imprisonment.

When the legal entity has sought to obtain a patrimonial benefit through the committed offence, the special limits of day-fines provided by law for the committed offence can be increased by one third without exceeding the general maximum fine (RON3 million).

The determination of the duration or amount of the penalty is made in relation to the gravity of the committed offence and the dangerousness of the offender, which are evaluated according to the following criteria:

• the circumstances and manner of committing the offence, as well as the means used;
• the danger created for the protected value;
• the nature and gravity of the resulting outcome or other consequences of the offence;
• the motive for committing the offence and the pursued purpose;
• the nature and frequency of offences that constitute the offender’s criminal record;
• conduct after the commission of the offence and during the criminal proceedings; and
• the level of education, age, health status, family and social situation.

Additionally, attenuating and/or aggravating circumstances, as well as the causes for mitigation or aggravation, will be taken into account based on the particularities of the case.

If, before the previous sentence has been executed or considered as executed, a new offence is committed in a state of relapse, the penalty established for it is added to the previous sentence that has not been executed, or to the remainder remaining unexecuted from it.

The Criminal Code also provides that, if, after the previous sentence has been executed or considered as executed, a new offence is committed in a state of relapse, the special limits of the penalty provided by law for the new offence are increased by half.

The National Anti-Corruption Strategy 2021–2025 aims, primarily through the establishment of guidelines, to strengthen the national system for preventing and combating corruption by enhancing mechanisms for identifying and managing the risks, threats and vulnerabilities associated with this phenomenon.

It brings together measures of institutional transparency and corruption prevention regulated by various legislative acts, including those related to the following.

• The ethical code or the code of conduct – the ethics counsellor: Government Emergency Ordinance No 57/2019.
• Asset declaration:
1. Law No 176/2010 on integrity in the exercise of public functions and dignities, amending and supplementing Law No 144/2007 on the establishment, organisation and functioning of the National Integrity Agency, as well as amending and supplementing other legislative acts; and
2. Law No 161/2003 on certain measures to ensure transparency in the exercise of public dignities, public functions, and in business, preventing and sanctioning corruption, with subsequent amendments and completions.
• Declaration of gifts: Law No 251/2004 on certain measures regarding goods received free of charge on the occasion of protocol actions in the exercise of the mandate or function.
• Conflicts of interest: Law No 161/2003 on certain measures to ensure transparency in the exercise of public dignities, public functions, and in business, preventing and sanctioning corruption.
• Incompatibilities:
1. Law No 176/2010; and
2. Law No 161/2003);
• Prohibitions after leaving public institutions:
1. Law No 98/2016 on public procurement;
2. Law No 99/2016 on sectoral procurement;
3. Law No 672/2002 on internal public audit;
4. Law No 161/2003; and
5. Government Emergency Ordinance No 66 of 29 June 2011, etc.
• Transparency in the decision-making process: Law No 52/2003.
• Access to public information: Law No 544/2001.
• Protection of whistle-blowers in the public interest.

Of particular note is Law No 361/2022 on the protection of whistle-blowers in the public interest, which came into force after the elaboration of this national strategy. The new law provides for the general obligation to identify or establish internal reporting channels for actual or potential violations of the law that have occurred or are likely to occur, and to establish internal reporting procedures and subsequent actions – it applies to the following entities:

• authorities, public institutions and legal entities without legal personality under their authority with at least 50 employees;
• other public law entities regardless of the number of employees; and
• private legal entities with at least 50 employees.

The failure to prevent bribery does not, in itself, constitute an offence. However, the failure to fulfil certain obligations arising from the law, essentially related to a failure to prevent or hinder criminal activities, may constitute an administrative offence. For example, the provisions of Article 28, paragraph (2) of Law No 361/2022 on the protection of whistle-blowers in the public interest regulate, as contraventions, the following acts (among others):

• obstructing, by any means, the reporting by the designated person to receive and record reports, or by the person who is part of the designated department for this purpose, with the applicable sanction being a fine ranging from RON2,000 to RON20,000;
• unjustified refusal of authorities, public institutions, legal entities of public law and private legal entities to respond to requests from the National Integrity Agency or other authorities and public institutions to which the Agency sends reports for competent resolution within the external reporting procedure, with the applicable sanction being a fine ranging from RON3,000 to RON30,000; and
• non-compliance with the obligation to establish internal reporting channels, with the applicable sanction being a fine ranging from RON3,000 to RON30,000 lei.

Such activities are recognised at the national level, as evidenced by Order of the Minister of Labour, Family and Social Protection No 1832/2011 approving the classification of occupations in Romania, which refers to the activity of a specialist in lobbying.

However, the current domestic legislation does not explicitly regulate lobbying activities, with proposed bills in this regard failing to pass (the most recent was the Draft Law on Transparency in Lobbying and Interest Representation – PL x129/2019, which was rejected by the Chamber of Deputies on 8 February 2022).

This circumstance has drawn the attention of the European Commission, which, in its 2023 Report on the rule of law situation in Romania, urged the Romanian State to introduce without further delay rules regarding lobbying activities for members of parliament.

Persons, whether individuals or legal entities, in the private sector who become aware of violations of anti-bribery or anti-corruption provisions are not obligated to notify law enforcement authorities. This is because such conduct does not fall within the scope of the norm regulating the offence of non-disclosure, which is Article 266, paragraph (1) of the Criminal Code.

The situation is different, however, when it comes to public officials. When they become aware of the commission of any offence defined by the criminal law in connection with the service in which they carry out their duties and do not immediately report it to the law enforcement authorities, they commit the offence of failure to report, as stipulated by Article 267 of the Criminal Code. This offence is considered committed even when done negligently.

Beyond these general provisions contained in the Criminal Code, the provisions of Article 6, paragraph 1 of Law No 129/2019 for the prevention and combating of money laundering and terrorist financing (as well as for amending and supplementing certain normative acts) stand out. These place an obligation on reporting entities (such as credit institutions, financial institutions, auditors, accounting experts, authorised accountants, tax consultants, notaries public, lawyers) to transmit a report on suspicious transactions to the National Office for the Prevention and Control of Money Laundering if they know, suspect or have reasonable grounds to suspect that the assets derive from the commission of offences or are connected to the financing of terrorism. Additionally, the reporting obligation arises when the reporting entity possesses information that can be used for the enforcement of the provisions of this law.

The legal basis regarding whistle-blower protection is Law No 361/2022 on the protection of whistle-blowers in the public interest, which transposed into national law Directive (EU) 2019/1937 on the protection of persons who report breaches of Union law. It applies to the following.

• Individuals who make reports and have obtained information regarding violations of the law in a professional context – eg:
1. employees;
2. self-employed individuals within the meaning of Article 49 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union;
3. shareholders;
4. individuals who are part of the management, executive or supervisory body of a business, including non-executive members of the board of directors;
5. volunteers and paid or unpaid interns; and
6. any person working under the supervision and direction of the natural or legal person with whom the contract has been concluded, and subcontractors and suppliers thereof.
• Individuals whose employment relationships have not yet begun and who make reports through internal or external reporting channels, or who publicly disclose information regarding violations of the law obtained during the recruitment process or other pre-contractual negotiations, or when the employment or service relationship has ceased.
• Individuals who report or publicly disclose information about violations of the law anonymously.

When one of these individuals reports a legal violation, the general principles outlined in Article 4 of the law apply, providing implicit protection for whistle-blowers. Among these principles are:

• the legality principle, according to which entities have an obligation to respect fundamental rights and freedoms;
• the impartiality principle, stating that the examination and resolution of reports should be done without subjectivity, regardless of the beliefs and interests of the individuals responsible for resolving them; and
• the “good faith” principle, ensuring protection for the person who had reasonable grounds to believe that the information about the reported violations was true at the time of reporting, and that said information falls within the scope of this law.

However, the law also includes explicit provisions aimed at ensuring effective protection for whistle-blowers, such as the obligation outlined in Article 8, which places the responsibility on the designated person to maintain confidentiality regarding the received reports. Specifically, they are not to disclose the whistle-blower’s identity or any information that would allow for their direct or indirect identification, except in the exceptional situations provided by law.

Additionally, any form of reprisal against the whistle-blower in the public interest, threats of reprisals, or attempts at reprisals are prohibited. Article 22 of the law lists several prohibited actions, such as:

• suspension of the individual employment contract or service relationship;
• dismissal or removal from public office;
• modification of the employment contract or service relationship;
• salary reduction;
• changes to the work schedule; and
• imposition of disciplinary sanctions, etc.

According to the law, the whistle-blower must receive confirmation of the receipt of the report within a maximum of seven calendar days from its receipt. They should also be informed about the status of subsequent actions within a maximum of three months from the date of confirmation of receipt or, in cases where the receipt of the report is not confirmed, from the expiry of the aforementioned seven-day period.

Furthermore, the whistle-blower should be informed whenever there are developments in the progress of subsequent actions, except when such information could jeopardise their course. Additionally, the whistle-blower must be informed about the resolution of the report.

Law No 361/2022 on the protection of whistle-blowers in the public interest, which regulates the general framework for reporting violations of the law that have occurred or are likely to occur, does not mandate the provision of incentives for whistle-blowers reporting bribery or corruption. However, this does not prevent legal entities from including the possibility of providing such incentives in their own internal reporting procedures and subsequent actions, which they are required to establish.

Additionally, the protective measures for whistle-blowers outlined in the law (see 6.4 Protection Afforded to Whistle-Blowers) can be seen as elements aimed at encouraging reporting. Although these measures may not equate to concrete benefits for whistle-blowers, they ensure that their situation will not worsen as a result of making a report.

The main relevant provisions regarding whistle-blowers are found in Law No 361/2022 on the protection of whistle-blowers in the public interest. These provisions serve as general rules, and in Annex 1 to the law, specific normative acts are expressly mentioned and continue to apply concerning the reporting of legal violations – eg:

• Law No 126/2018 on financial instrument markets; and
• Law No 129/2019 for the prevention and combating of money laundering and terrorist financing, as well as amending and supplementing certain normative acts.

The enforcement of anti-bribery and anti-corruption laws falls exclusively within the realm of criminal law, with prosecutors and criminal investigation authorities having jurisdiction in this regard. However, as outlined in 7.2 Enforcement Body, there are various state entities with the authority to ascertain offences, and which can refer the commission of a crime to the competent criminal investigation authority.

Through Government Emergency Ordinance No 43/2002, the National Anti-corruption Directorate was established within the Prosecutor’s Office attached to the High Court of Cassation and Justice. The Directorate is tasked with conducting criminal investigations, as outlined in the Criminal Procedure Code, Law No 78/2000 for preventing, discovering and sanctioning corruption, and the respective emergency ordinance. It handles offences specified in Law No 78/2000 that fall within the competence of the National Anti-corruption Directorate.

According to Article 3 of the emergency ordinance, the National Anti-corruption Directorate has jurisdiction over offences specified in Law No 78/2000, committed under one of the following conditions:

• where, regardless of the quality of the persons who committed them, they have caused material damage greater than the equivalent in Romanian lei of EUR200,000, or where the value of the amount or property that is the subject of the corruption offence is greater than the equivalent in Romanian lei of EUR10,000;
• where, regardless of the value of the material damage or the value of the amount or property that is the subject of the corruption offence, they are committed by persons expressly provided by law (eg, deputies, senators, members of the government, judges of the High Court of Cassation and Justice, and members of the Constitutional Court);
• offences against the financial interests of the EU; and
• offences of diverting public tenders, abuse of office and usurpation, if they have caused damage greater than the equivalent in Romanian lei of EUR1 million.

In order to carry out the activities of discovery and investigation of corruption offences promptly and thoroughly, the National Anti-corruption Directorate has its own judicial police officers. They operate exclusively within the Directorate, and can only perform the investigative acts ordered by the prosecutors of the Directorate.

Bribery and corruption offences that do not fall within the conditions mentioned above are under the competence of the non-specialised prosecutor’s office. When the competence to investigate offences does not belong to the National Anti-corruption Directorate but to the non-specialised prosecutor’s office, the criminal investigation units within the Service for the Investigation of Economic Crime are usually involved.

The General Anti-corruption Directorate within the Ministry of Internal Affairs is also worth noting. It specialises in preventing and combating corruption within the personnel of the Ministry of Internal Affairs, including its specialised units such as the police and the gendarmerie.

Separate from the jurisdiction of criminal investigation bodies, national legislation regulates the activities of State bodies with the authority to ascertain offences. Their activities are limited to establishing that offences have been committed and notifying the competent criminal investigation authorities. Examples include the following:

• the Fight Against Fraud Department is a unique institution serving as the contact point with the EU’s European Anti-Fraud Office, and has the status of a body for ascertaining facts that may constitute offences affecting the financial interests of the EU; and
• the National Integrity Agency, whose purpose is to ensure integrity in the exercise of public offices and functions, and to prevent institutional corruption.

After being notified through a complaint or report, through acts drawn up by other legally provided entities or when self-initiating an investigation into a bribery or corruption offence, criminal investigation authorities may, before proceeding with the questioning of individuals or the administration of other evidence, resort to the evidentiary procedure of surrendering objects, documents or computer data, as provided by Article 170 of the Criminal Procedure Code. They may also engage in the forced seizure of objects or documents, as provided by Article 171 of the Criminal Procedure Code. These measures can apply to any natural or legal person in possession of objects, documents or computer data that can serve as evidence.

These actions can only be carried out after the initiation of criminal proceedings in rem, as the current national legislation does not regulate the possibility of undertaking preliminary actions by criminal investigation authorities.

For the offence of bribery, the reporting of the act by the briber before the criminal investigation authorities have been notified about it prevents them from engaging in the criminal liability of the briber, as stipulated in Article 290, paragraph (3) of the Criminal Procedure Code.

Furthermore, the prosecutor has the freedom to order one of the following solutions, according to Article 327 of the Criminal Procedure Code:

• discontinuation of criminal proceedings through an ordinance, when the law stipulates a fine or imprisonment of up to seven years, and when it is found that there is no public interest in continuing the criminal investigation;
• dismissal through an ordinance, when one of the cases preventing the exercise of criminal proceedings is present (eg, when evidence indicates that the act is not provided for by criminal law, or the statute of limitations for criminal liability has expired); or
• referral to trial through an indictment if the criminal investigation materials indicate that the act exists, has been committed by the accused, and that the accused is criminally liable.

At the same time, the Criminal Procedure Code allows for the conclusion of a plea agreement regarding offences for which the law stipulates a fine or imprisonment of up to 15 years. Opting for this procedure entails a benefit for the accused, consisting of a one-third reduction of the legal penalty limits for imprisonment and a one-quarter reduction for fines.

The Romanian criminal prosecution authorities have the competence to conduct criminal investigations for offences committed within the territory of Romania, following the principle of the territoriality of criminal law.

Furthermore, based on the principle of the personal scope of criminal law, as provided by Article 9 of the Criminal Code, the competence of Romanian criminal prosecution authorities extends to offences committed outside the country by a Romanian citizen or a Romanian legal person if the punishment prescribed by Romanian law is life imprisonment or imprisonment for more than ten years. In other cases, this competence applies if the act is considered a crime both under Romanian criminal law and under the criminal law of the country where it was committed, or if it occurred in a location not subject to the jurisdiction of any state. However, in these situations, the initiation of criminal proceedings requires prior authorisation from the Attorney General of the Court of Appeal within whose territorial jurisdiction the first notified prosecutor’s office is located, or from the Attorney General of the High Court of Cassation and Justice.

A derogation from the provisions of Article 9 of the Criminal Code was introduced by Law No 234/2022, amending Article 18^3 of Law No 78/2000 regarding the prevention, detection and punishment of corruption and other measures (implementing Directive (EU) 2017/1371 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 July 2017 on the fight against fraud affecting the financial interests of the Union through criminal law means).

According to this amendment, if the acts are committed outside the territory of the country by a Romanian citizen or a Romanian legal person (regardless of the punishment provided by Romanian law), even if the act is not considered a crime by the criminal law of the country where it was committed, and without the need for prior authorisation from the Attorney General of the Court of Appeal within whose territorial jurisdiction the first notified prosecutor’s office is located or from the Attorney General of the High Court of Cassation and Justice, Romanian criminal law applies to:

• offences provided in (among others) Articles 6 and 7, and Articles 181 to 185, of Law No 78/2000 on the prevention, detection and punishment of corruption; and
• some of the corruption offences provided in the Criminal Code (ie, active and passive briery, influence-peddling, influence-buying).

Also, the principle of the reality of criminal law and the principle of the universality of criminal law are applicable, and are both provided for by the Criminal Code.

In the past year, final decisions have been rendered in several notable cases, such as the following.

One case involved a former chief prosecutor of the Directorate for the Investigation of Organised Crime and Terrorism being indicted for over eight years, for the offences of abuse of office and receiving undue benefits (the ANRP Case). The alleged acts were related to a restitution approved during her tenure as Secretary of State at the Ministry of Justice and as a member of the Compensation Commission within the National Agency for the Restitution of Properties. The decision issued by the panel of five judges within the High Court of Cassation and Justice, as the appeal court, was an acquittal on the grounds that the act was not provided for by criminal law (Decision of the High Court of Cassation and Justice No 87 of 5 December 2022).

Another long-standing case, definitively resolved, involved a former mayor of a municipality and finance minister being definitively sentenced to six years in prison by the High Court of Cassation and Justice, for the offences of influence-peddling and money laundering. This case is known as the Paintings Case as over 100 works of art purchased by the defendant through intermediaries were identified (Decision of the High Court of Cassation and Justice No 38 of 2 May 2023).

In another case, known as the Forest Restitutions from Romsilva Case, in which judges, businessmen and a well-known Romanian prince were defendants, recent acquittal and discontinuance decisions were issued for the offences of influence-buying and influence-peddling. In this case, the criminal investigation lasted three years, and the trial phase lasted eight years (Decision of the High Court of Cassation and Justice No 338/2023 of 13 November 2023).

A former prosecutor from the Prosecutor’s Office attached to the Iași Tribunal was sentenced to a term of two years and 11 months in prison, with a suspension of the sentence for a supervised probation period of four years. The individual was also fined RON12,000 and was prohibited from (among other things) holding a position, practising the profession or occupation, or engaging in activities that were used to commit the offences, for a period of two years. The charges included bribery, conducting financial transactions as incompatible acts of trade with their position for the purpose of obtaining money, goods or other undue benefits, and making false statements (Decision of the High Court of Cassation and Justice No 50 of 31 May 2023).

Furthermore, in many high-profile cases, decisions to terminate criminal proceedings have been rendered due to the expiry of the statute of limitations, following the rulings of the Constitutional Court of Romania No 297 of 26 April 2018 and No 358 of 26 May 2022, pronounced on matters of prescription. These decisions have sparked numerous controversies in practice, and include the following.

• A case in which the former deputy governor of the National Bank had been definitively sentenced to five years in prison for the offence of influence-trafficking. The revision filed by the convicted person was definitively admitted in relation to the Constitutional Court decisions on prescription, and the cessation of criminal proceedings was ordered. However, the individual had already served two years of their sentence (Judgment No 1390 of 14 December 2022, rendered by the Bucharest Tribunal, definitively through Decision No 724 of 31 March 2023, rendered by the Bucharest Court of Appeal).
• A case in which a former minister of tourism had been initially sentenced to eight years in prison for two offences of incitement to bribery and five offences of money laundering. On appeal, the cessation of criminal proceedings was ordered (Decision of the High Court of Cassation and Justice on 11 July 2023).
• A case in which a former deputy had been initially sentenced to four years and three months in prison for influence-peddling, and on appeal the cessation of criminal proceedings was ordered (Decision of the High Court of Cassation and Justice No 48 of 26 May 2023).

Among the recent relevant investigations, where the measure of preventative arrest was ordered, a case involving the offence of bribery is worth noting. The act consisted of offering money to the mother of a judge who was to finally decide on a criminal case in which the mayor of a Romanian municipality was the defendant (and who was initially sentenced to imprisonment), so that the judge would rule in his favour.

Generally, when a conviction is handed down for corruption offences, the level of imposed sanctions falls within the limits set by the Criminal Code and Law No 78/2000 (see 5. Penalties). This is because under current legislation the conditions for considering mitigating circumstances by the court (which would lead to a one-third reduction of the special penalty limits prescribed by law) are quite challenging to meet.

A recent press release from the National Anti-corruption Directorate specifies that in the months of June, July and August of 2023, 97 defendants were convicted in corruption cases handled by that office. This resulted in 45 final court decisions, covering offences such as bribery, influence-trafficking, abuse of office, fraud involving European funds, etc. The sentences imposed by judges on these 97 defendants ranged from five years and four months of imprisonment to one year of imprisonment, with a suspension of sentence execution.

On 12 October 2023, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) Working Group on Bribery adopted the Phase 1 Report on Romania. This report evaluated the national legislative framework for implementing the Convention on Combating Bribery of Foreign Public Officials in International Business Transactions and related provisions, of the 2021 Recommendation of the Council for Further Combating Bribery of Foreign Public Officials in International Business Transactions. In this initial phase, the evaluation procedure did not examine the application of the legal frameworks in practice.

The report considered that Romania’s legal framework is largely in conformity with the standards of the OECD Anti-bribery Convention. However, it also highlighted some issues that will need further examination in Romania’s Phase 2 evaluation. Among these are:

• potential amendment of legislation to create a new standalone foreign bribery offence not defined in relation to the domestic bribery offence;
• how legal persons may be held responsible for foreign bribery;
• the potential increase in maximum penalties both for individuals and for legal entities; and
• the establishment of an alternative fine.

Additionally, the report addressed the application of amendments abolishing the dual criminality requirement concerning corruption crimes when establishing jurisdiction over Romanian natural and legal persons.

On 7 September 2023, the report resulting from the fifth evaluation of Romania by the Group of States against Corruption (GRECO) was published. This evaluation focused on preventing corruption and promoting integrity at the central level (ie, executive leadership positions such as the President, Prime Minister, Deputy Prime Ministers, ministers, secretaries and undersecretaries of State, Presidential advisers, State advisers and ministerial advisers) and at the level of law enforcement institutions (ie, police and gendarmerie).

The current National Anti-corruption Strategy and the developed institutional integrity framework – including the National Integrity Agency (ANI), the National Anti-corruption Directorate (DNA) and the General Anti-corruption Directorate (DGA) – were considered. Additionally, the legal integrity framework – consisting of several laws regulating conflict of interest, incompatibilities, completion of asset and interest declarations, acceptance, and declaration of gifts, etc – was acknowledged. Reference was made to the new law on the protection of whistle-blowers in the public interest, which came into effect in December 2022.

However, several aspects requiring improvement were identified, leading to the formulation of 26 recommendations. These include conducting a comprehensive analytical study of the existing integrity legal framework, and revising the current integrity framework in light of its findings to enhance clarity, coherence and completeness.

Other recommendations involve creating an independent oversight mechanism to examine complaints against authorities refusing to disclose public interest information, and ensuring the effective implementation of access-to-information legislation. A study has also been proposed to evaluate the practice of legislating through emergency ordinances.

For law enforcement institutions, priority measures are suggested to ensure that appointments to leadership positions, including through delegation, are strictly based on merit and the outcome of open, standardised and transparent competitions. The police, gendarmerie, and the Ministry of Internal Affairs are advised to review current rules and procedures regarding whistle-blowers, to align them with the new law on whistle-blower protection. Romanian authorities are invited to present a report on the measures taken to implement the recommendations by 31 December 2024.

Currently, there are no draft laws in Romania targeting changes to applicable legislation or law enforcement agencies. However, considering the recommendations addressed to Romania (as mentioned in 8.1 Assessment of the Applicable Enforced Legislation), future adjustments to the legislation are considered inevitable.