Criminal offences under Romanian law are set out not only in the Romanian Criminal Code, but also in special legislation, which provides, among other things, for offences relating to money laundering or tax evasion.

By contrast, contraventions are non-criminal offences generally covering less serious breaches of law. They are subject to administrative sanctions, most commonly warnings or fines, and do not give rise to criminal liability.

Under Romanian criminal law, a criminal offence is defined as an act provided for by criminal law, committed with the requisite form of culpability, that is unjustified and attributable to the person who committed it.

As a general rule, an offence perpetrated by way of an affirmative act is punishable where it is committed with intent. Criminal liability or negligence arises only where expressly provided for by law. In the case of offences committed by omission, liability may arise whether the omission is intentional or negligent, unless the law requires a specific form of culpability.

Intent is therefore not a prerequisite for criminal liability in all cases, as Romanian criminal law also provides for offences committed negligently. The applicable form of culpability is determined by reference to the provisions governing the relevant offence.

Motive is not generally required for an offence to be punishable under Romanian law. It may, however, be relevant where the law expressly attaches legal consequences to a particular motive for which an offence was committed, including where such motive constitutes an element of the offence or an aggravating circumstance.

A person may be held criminally liable for an attempt to commit an offence where the execution of the intended offence was commenced, but the offence was not completed, either because the execution was interrupted or because the intended result did not occur. Criminal liability for an attempt arises only where the law expressly provides that the attempt to commit the relevant offence is punishable.

In white-collar criminal proceedings, the burden of proof is governed by the general rules set out in the Romanian Code of Criminal Procedure.

Therefore, the burden of proof rests primarily with the prosecution, which must establish, on the basis of evidence, that a criminal offence was committed by the person concerned. Nevertheless, the parties are entitled to propose the taking of evidence in support of their respective positions.

The applicable standard of proof varies depending on the stage of the criminal proceedings. During a criminal investigation, a person may acquire the status of suspect where there is reasonable suspicion that they have committed a criminal offence. Subsequently, where the evidence gathered provides sufficient grounds to establish a person’s involvement in the commission of an offence, the prosecutor may initiate criminal proceedings against that person, who thereby acquires the status of defendant.

The conviction may only be rendered where the applicable standard of proof is met, namely, where the defendant’s commission of the offence has been established beyond a reasonable doubt.

A person subject to white-collar criminal proceedings benefits from the presumption of innocence and is therefore considered innocent until proven guilty by a final criminal judgment.

Furthermore, pursuant to the in dubio pro reo principle, any doubt arising in the assessment of the evidence by the judicial authorities must be interpreted in favour of the accused.

The assessment of evidence is also governed by the principle of free evaluation of evidence, pursuant to which, no item of evidence has a predetermined evidentiary value, and the judicial authorities are required to assess the evidence freely, having regard to all the circumstances of the case.

As a general rule, the limitation period for criminal liability begins to run from the date on which the offence was perpetrated. Specific rules apply to continuous, continued and habitual offences, for which the limitation period runs from the cessation of the conduct or from the last relevant act or omission, as applicable. For progressive offences, the period runs from the date of the act or omission.

Where the statutory elements of an offence require the occurrence of damage or the obtaining of an undue benefit, the limitation period begins when the first damage occurs or the first undue benefit is obtained. In the case of certain corruption offences committed in several alternative statutory forms at different times, the limitation period runs from the first such act.

The applicable limitation period is determined by reference to the maximum statutory penalty for the offence and is generally 15, ten, eight, five or three years, depending on the seriousness of the applicable sentencing range.

Romanian law does not provide a separate limitation regime specifically for concealed offences, so the ordinary rules apply, subject to the special rules governing the manner in which particular offences are committed.

Extraterritorial Jurisdiction

Romanian criminal law may apply to white-collar offences committed outside Romania under the general rules on the territorial and extraterritorial application of criminal law. In particular, the Romanian Criminal Code provides for jurisdiction based on the:

• personality principle (offences committed abroad by Romanian citizens or Romanian legal entities);
• the protective principle (certain offences perpetrated abroad against the Romanian state or a Romanian citizen or legal entity); and
• the universality principle, subject to the statutory conditions applicable in each case.

Once Romanian jurisdiction is established, investigative and judicial measures to be carried out abroad are generally implemented through the applicable international and EU judicial co-operation mechanisms.

Mutual Legal Assistance, Cross-Border Co-Operation and Extradition

International judicial co-operation in criminal matters is primarily governed by Law No 302/2004 on international judicial co-operation in criminal matters, together with applicable EU instruments, and bilateral and multilateral treaties. Available mechanisms include mutual legal assistance, European Investigation Orders, joint investigation teams, recognition and enforcement of freezing and confiscation orders, transfer of proceedings, and extradition and surrender under a European arrest warrant.

Within the EU, co-operation is facilitated in particular through Eurojust, Europol and the European Public Prosecutor’s Office (EPPO). Romania does not have a general blocking statute preventing co-operation with foreign criminal authorities. However, requests for co-operation remain subject to the grounds for refusal and safeguards provided by Romanian law and the applicable international instrument.

Extradition is available in relation to white-collar offences where the applicable statutory and treaty requirements are met, including, as a rule, the relevant dual-criminality and seriousness requirements. Within the EU, surrender is primarily governed by the European Arrest Warrant regime rather than traditional extradition.

International Enforcement and Participation

Romanian authorities regularly participate in cross-border investigations, including through Eurojust-supported joint investigation teams and co-ordinated action days, Europol co-operation, and EPPO investigations concerning offences affecting the EU’s financial interests. Romania also participates in the broader international framework for combating money laundering, corruption and transnational crime, including the OECD anti-bribery framework, INTERPOL, Europol and Eurojust.

Extensive Model of Criminal Liability

Romanian law follows an extensive model of corporate criminal liability. The criminal liability of a legal entity does not exclude that of the natural persons who contributed to the offence and is autonomous from their liability.

A legal entity may be held liable for offences perpetrated by members of its governing bodies or representatives, as well as by persons effectively acting in its name or on its behalf, even without formal representative powers, provided that the statutory requirements for corporate criminal liability are met. Accordingly, a legal entity may be convicted even if no natural person is convicted or, in certain circumstances, identified.

Restructuring

Where a legal entity ceases to exist following a merger, absorption or demerger after the offence, its criminal liability and consequences may pass, as provided by law, to the successor that has absorbed or acquired the legal entity/entities.

Parent-Subsidiary or Group Company Context

In a parent-subsidiary or group context, criminal liability is assessed separately for each legal entity. A parent company is not automatically liable for offences committed by its subsidiary merely on the basis of ownership or control, but may incur liability where the statutory requirements for its own criminal liability are met.

“Failure to Prevent”

Romanian law does not provide for a general autonomous “failure to prevent” crime. Accordingly, a company cannot generally be held criminally liable solely for failing to prevent an employee, subsidiary or associated person from perpetrating a crime. However, deficiencies in corporate organisation, supervision or control may be relevant when assessing whether the statutory requirements for corporate criminal liability are satisfied.

Assessment of Penalties

In determining the sentence, the court has regard to the general criteria set out in the Criminal Code, including, but not limited to, the circumstances and manner in which the crime was perpetrated, the means used, the nature and seriousness of the consequences, or the motive and purpose pursued.

The Sentencing Process

Following a guilty verdict, the court determines the applicable statutory penalty, applies any relevant aggravating or mitigating circumstances or other grounds for adjusting the sentencing limits, and individualises the sentence accordingly. For natural persons, principal penalties include imprisonment and criminal fines. For legal entities, the principal penalty is a fine, which may be accompanied by complementary penalties, including dissolution, suspension of activity, closure of establishments or judicial supervision.

Admission of Guilt

An admission of guilt may result in reduced sentencing limits. Under a plea agreement concluded with the prosecutor, the parties may agree on the penalty and its execution, subject to court approval. Alternatively, a defendant who admits the facts at trial may request the simplified procedure. In both cases, where the statutory conditions are met, the limits of imprisonment are reduced by one third and those of a fine by one quarter.

Mitigation

In individualising the sentence, the court may consider measures taken to mitigate or compensate for the consequences of the crime, post-offence conduct, co-operation with the authorities, prior criminal history, and applicable mitigating circumstances. Corporate culture and remediation efforts are not expressly regulated as separate mitigating factors but may be relevant to the overall assessment.

Victims of white-collar offences may claim compensation either within the criminal proceedings or separately before the civil courts.

In criminal proceedings, the injured party may bring a civil claim for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage, specifying its nature, amount, grounds and supporting evidence. If no such claim is brought, compensation may be sought separately before the competent civil court.

Romanian law does not provide for a general class-action mechanism for white-collar offences. However, multiple injured parties may bring individual civil claims within the same criminal proceedings.

The main authority responsible for investigating and prosecuting white-collar offences is the Public Ministry, through the competent Prosecutor’s Office and criminal investigation bodies acting under prosecutorial supervision.

Certain offences fall within specialised structures. The National Anticorruption Directorate (Direcția Națională Anticorupție, DNA) investigates serious corruption and related offences, while the Directorate for Investigating Organised Crime and Terrorism (Direcția de Investigare a Infracțiunilor de Criminalitate Organizată și Terorism, DIICOT) has jurisdiction over certain organised and serious crimes, including money laundering and economic or financial offences. Both operate within the Prosecutor’s Office attached to the High Court of Cassation and Justice.

The police and specialised financial, tax and regulatory authorities may also exercise investigative, supervisory or enforcement powers within their respective areas of competence, while criminal sanctions are imposed by the courts.

Criminal proceedings may co-exist with civil and administrative enforcement, including compensation, restitution and regulatory sanctions. Parallel proceedings are subject to the applicable procedural rules, and civil proceedings may, in certain circumstances, be suspended where the outcome of criminal proceedings is decisive.

White-collar enforcement is an important national and EU public policy objective, particularly given its impact on the economy, public finances and confidence in public institutions. Individual cases, however, are determined by independent prosecutors and courts on the basis of the applicable law and evidence.

White-collar investigations may be initiated following a criminal complaint or denunciation, a referral by an authority or other person authorised by law, or an ex officio where there are signs that an offence has been perpetrated.

Upon receipt of a referral, the criminal investigation authority verifies whether it has jurisdiction and whether the referral meets the statutory requirements. Where the referral does not meet the formal requirements, it may be returned for completion, while a referral falling within the jurisdiction of another authority is forwarded to the competent criminal investigation authority.

Where the referral meets the statutory requirements, the criminal investigation authority orders the beginning of the criminal investigation in rem, in respect of the alleged offence. At this stage, the investigation concerns the offence itself and is not formally directed against a particular person.

The initiation and conduct of the investigation are governed primarily by the Romanian Criminal Procedure Code. Certain categories of white-collar offences may also be subject to special rules on jurisdiction, including those falling within the competence of specialised prosecution structures such as the DNA or the DIICOT.

Under the Romanian Criminal Procedure Code, investigative authorities may obtain information and documents through a wide range of evidentiary and investigative measures.

Production of Documents

The criminal investigation authorities may request submissions within the criminal file of relevant documents, data or evidence which are in the possession of the DIICOT. For this purpose, a company that is under investigation for a white-collar offence may be required to produce and submit documents or items that may serve as a means of evidence. If they are not produced voluntarily, compulsory seizure may be ordered by the prosecutor or the court.

Search and Seizure of Documents

Searches of company premises may be conducted where there is a reasonable suspicion that a search may lead to the discovery or collection of evidence. Documents and other items relevant to the investigation may be seized during the search if they are related to the crime under investigation or may serve as evidence.

Questioning of Employees, Officers and Directors

An employee, officer, director or third party may be summoned for questioning if they have knowledge of facts or circumstances relevant to the investigation. If questioned as a witness, the person is required to appear before the criminal investigation authority and give a statement, subject to statutory exceptions and the privilege against self-incrimination.

Where there is reasonable suspicion that a person has perpetrated the crime under investigation, they must be questioned as a suspect and benefit from the corresponding procedural safeguards, including the right to remain silent and the right to legal assistance.

Digital Assets

Digital assets may be identified and traced through computer searches, including by examining computer systems and stored data.

They may also be subject to precautionary seizure to prevent their concealment, disposal or removal from enforcement and, where they constitute proceeds or instruments of an offence or otherwise meet the statutory requirements, to special or extended confiscation.

Romanian enforcement authorities increasingly use digital tools and data analysis in financial, tax and fraud investigations, while the use of AI-based tools in criminal investigations remains under development.

There is no comprehensive Romanian legislation that enforcement authorities can specifically apply to govern the use of AI. In this regard, the general rules on criminal procedure, evidence and data protection, as well as the EU AI Act, apply. In this context, Opinion No 20 from 2025 of the Consultative Council of European Prosecutors (CCPE) acknowledges the potential for AI-generated content to reproduce bias and discrimination and stresses the importance of appropriate ethical standards and regulatory safeguards governing its use.

AI-enhanced corporate investigations are not specifically regulated. Their results may be submitted to enforcement authorities and are assessed under the ordinary rules of criminal procedure.

Internal Investigations

Romanian law does not generally require companies to conduct internal investigations, although they may be relevant for identifying misconduct and demonstrating effective compliance. Under Law No 361/2022, however, certain companies must maintain internal whistle-blowing channels and follow-up procedures.

Moreover, under Law No 319/2024, in cases involving bribery of foreign public officials, judicial mitigating circumstances may include the legal entity’s adoption and effective implementation of an internal organisation, management and control programme designed to prevent the offence, where such programme was in place at the time of commission of the offence, as well as post-offence co-operation, including reporting the offence and facilitating the identification and prosecution of other persons involved in foreign bribery.

Data Protection and Employment

Internal investigations involving employees must comply with the GDPR, Law No 190/2018 and the Romanian Labour Code, including applicable data-processing and disciplinary requirements.

Disclosure and Privilege

Under Law 78/2000 on the prevention, detection, and sanctioning of acts of corruption, persons with control functions must report information indicating potential corruption-related offences and preserve relevant evidence. Similar reporting obligations apply to persons involved in certain financial and commercial transactions where assets are suspected to derive from corruption or related offences.

Good-faith compliance with the reporting obligations does not constitute a breach of professional or banking secrecy and does not give rise to criminal, civil or disciplinary liability. Moreover, professional and banking secrecy may not generally be invoked against prosecutors, once criminal proceedings have been initiated, or against the courts. Lawyers’ professional secrecy, when exercised in accordance with the law, is expressly exempted from this rule.

Failure to comply in bad faith with the reporting obligations is punishable by imprisonment from six months to five years, unless the conduct constitutes a more serious offence. Where the failure results from negligence, the sanction is imprisonment from three months to two years, or a fine.

As outlined in 2.2 Initiating an Investigation, white-collar investigations may be initiated following a complaint or denunciation, a referral by an authority or other person authorised by law, or ex officio by the criminal investigation authorities.

Romanian criminal procedure is primarily governed by the principle of legality and does not grant criminal investigation authorities’ general discretion as to whether to pursue criminal proceedings against a company or an individual where the statutory requirements for criminal liability are met.

However, the Romanian Criminal Procedure Code provides for a limited degree of discretion based on the principle of opportunity. For offences punishable by a fine or imprisonment of up to seven years, the prosecutor may waive prosecution where it is established that there is no public interest in pursuing the offence.

Romanian legislation provides for certain mechanisms that may lead to the resolution of a criminal case without going through ordinary criminal proceedings before the courts.

Waiver of Prosecution

Where an offence is punishable by a fine or imprisonment of up to seven years, the prosecutor may waive prosecution if they find that there is no public interest in pursuing the offence. The public interest is assessed by factors, including the circumstances in which the offence was committed, the purpose pursued and the consequences of the offence.

However, the application of this mechanism remains subject to the prosecutor’s discretion, within the limits provided by law.

Plea Agreement

A second mechanism is the plea agreement entered into between the defendant and the prosecutor after criminal proceedings have been formally initiated against the defendant.

The conclusion of a plea agreement is conditional upon the defendant’s admission of perpetrating the crime, where the offence is punishable by a fine or imprisonment of up to 15 years. In addition to the defendant’s admission of the commission of the offence and acceptance of its legal classification, the agreement concerns the type and amount of the penalty and the manner in which it is to be executed or, where applicable, a waiver of the application of the penalty or a postponement of its application.

A defendant who enters into such an agreement benefits from a one third reduction of the statutory limits of imprisonment and a one quarter reduction of the statutory limits of the fine.

The alternative mechanisms presented above are not generally conditional upon the implementation or improvement of a compliance programme. However, compliance measures may be relevant to the outcome of the proceedings. In particular, an effective internal organisation, management and control programme aimed at preventing foreign bribery may constitute a judicial mitigating circumstance and may therefore be relevant to the determination of the applicable penalty.

The main offences include company law offences, fraud and forgery offences, tax fraud, and money laundering.

As the constituent elements of several of these offences are addressed in the sections below, this section focuses on the relevant corporate fraud offences under the Romanian Criminal Code, as well as the specific company law offences provided for under Law No 31/1990.

Corporate Fraud Offences

Relevant corporate fraud offences under the Romanian Criminal Code include:

• fraud, involving deception aimed at obtaining an unjust material benefit and causing damage;
• fraudulent management, consisting of causing damage in connection with the management or preservation of a natural or legal person;
• defrauding creditors, including the concealment or disposal of assets or the invocation of fictitious debts for the purpose of defrauding creditors;
• fraudulent bankruptcy, which includes concealing assets, falsifying or destroying accounting records or recording fictitious debts;
• embezzlement, consisting of the misappropriation, use or disposal of assets managed or administered by the offender, including, where applicable, in the private sector.

Depending on the offence and its circumstances, penalties generally range from six months’ to five years’ imprisonment, with a criminal fine available as an alternative for certain offences.

Company Law Offences

Relevant offences include the presentation in bad faith of false information concerning the company’s incorporation or financial position and the fraudulent use of company assets or credit, punishable by six months’ to three years’ imprisonment or a fine.

Other offences include the unlawful distribution of dividends and the fraudulent manipulation of the value of shares or bonds, punishable by one to five years’ imprisonment.

Bribery Offences

Romanian law regulates both passive and active bribery. Passive bribery consists of a public official soliciting, receiving or accepting the promise of an undue benefit in connection with their official duties and is punishable by three to ten years’ imprisonment.

On the other hand, active bribery consists of promising, offering or giving such an undue benefit and is punishable by two to seven years’ imprisonment. The bribe-giver is not punishable in cases of coercion, or voluntary disclosure before the authorities have been notified of the offence.

In both cases, the undue benefits are subject to confiscation, or confiscation of their equivalent value.

Influence Offences

Romanian law regulates both influence peddling and buying influence. Influence peddling consists of requesting, receiving or accepting the promise of an undue benefit in exchange for influencing or claiming to influence a public official and is punishable by two to seven years’ imprisonment.

Buying influence consists of promising, offering or giving such benefits in exchange for the exercise of that influence and is also punishable by two to seven years’ imprisonment. The offender is not punishable if they report the offence before the authorities have been notified of it.

The undue benefits are generally subject to confiscation.

Bribery of Foreign Public Officials and Bribery Between Private Parties

The bribery provisions also extend, subject to statutory conditions, to certain foreign and international public officials, as well as to persons performing duties within a legal entity. In the latter case, the applicable statutory penalty limits are reduced by one third.

Romanian law does not impose a general obligation to prevent bribery or influence peddling or to maintain an anti-bribery compliance programme, and failure to implement such a programme is not, in itself, an offence.

However, under Law No 319/2024, in foreign bribery cases, an effective internal organisation, management and control programme designed to prevent the offence may constitute a judicial mitigating circumstance.

Separately, Law No 361/2022 requires companies to establish or maintain internal reporting channels and procedures for receiving, examining and following up on reports concerning breaches of law. As a general rule, this obligation applies to companies with at least 50 employees.

Reports may be made internally or externally to the competent authorities and the person designated to handle internal reports is required to examine them and carry out appropriate follow-up actions. Accordingly, information concerning suspected bribery identified in a professional context may be reported and may ultimately be referred to the competent authorities.

The main offences are regulated by Law No 24/2017 on issuers of financial instruments and market operations, and Government Emergency Ordinance No 99/2006 on credit institutions and capital adequacy.

Insider Dealing and Market Abuse

Law No 24/2017 regulates insider dealing, namely the use of inside information to acquire or dispose of financial instruments, as well as recommending or inducing another person to engage in insider dealing, and the unlawful disclosure of inside information. These crimes are punishable by one to five years’ imprisonment.

The law also deals with market manipulation, including transactions, orders or dissemination of information giving false or misleading signals or artificially affecting prices or benchmarks, punishable by one to five years’ imprisonment.

The intentional presentation by management of inaccurate financial statements or false information concerning an issuer’s economic state is also an offence, punishable by six months to five years’ imprisonment and prohibition from exercising certain rights.

Criminal Banking Law

Government Emergency Ordinance No 99/2006 deals with the unauthorised conduct of activities reserved for credit institutions, including taking deposits or other repayable funds from the public, as well as the unauthorised use of credit-institution designations and unlawful obstruction of supervisory powers. Depending on the offence, sanctions include imprisonment and/or a criminal fine.

Tax fraud offences are primarily governed by Law No 241/2005 on the prevention and combating of tax evasion.

General tax evasion includes the following, where committed for the purpose of evading tax obligations:

• concealing taxable assets or income;
• failing to record transactions;
• recording fictitious transactions or expenses;
• manipulating accounting records; and
• other fraudulent conduct affecting tax controls.

It is punishable by three to ten years’ imprisonment or a fine, with increased sentencing limits for tax losses exceeding EUR500,000 or EUR1 million.

VAT fraud includes fraudulent schemes based on false or incomplete VAT information or the fraudulent use of VAT declarations, where they cause losses of at least EUR10 million to the EU budget in cross-border cases or EUR1 million to the state budget. These offences are punishable by seven to 15 years’ imprisonment.

The law also deals with certain lending transactions involving funds derived from unrecorded transactions or income, punishable by three to ten years’ imprisonment or a fine.

Romanian law does not establish a general obligation or standalone offence for failure to prevent tax evasion. Companies are, however, subject to tax, accounting and reporting obligations, breaches of which may result in administrative or criminal liability.

The main criminal offences in relation to financial record-keeping are set out in Law No 241/2005 on the prevention and combating of tax evasion.

The following are sanctioned, where perpetrated for the purpose of evading tax obligations:

• the failure, in whole or in part, to record commercial transactions or income in accounting records or other legally required documents;
• the recording of expenses that are not based on genuine transactions or the recording of other fictitious transactions;
• the alteration, destruction or concealment of accounting records or other means of data storage, including electronic means; and
• the keeping of double accounting records using documents or other means of data storage, including electronic means.

These offences are punishable by three to ten years’ imprisonment and the prohibition of certain rights, or a fine. Where the resulting tax loss exceeds EUR500,000, both the minimum and maximum statutory limits of imprisonment are increased by three years, and where the loss exceeds EUR1 million, they are increased by five years.

The competent authorities must establish the relevant prohibited conduct and that it was perpetrated with the specific purpose of evading tax obligations. Simple inaccuracies or failures to comply with accounting requirements are not sufficient, in themselves, to give rise to criminal liability. Where an aggravated form is alleged, the resulting loss and the applicable statutory threshold must also be established.

Competition Law No 21/1996 provides the intentional devising or organisation, by persons exercising management functions within an undertaking, of prohibited anti-competitive practices, including price fixing, market or customer sharing, output restrictions and bid rigging. The offence is punishable by six months to five years’ imprisonment or a fine, together with the prohibition of certain rights.

Certain agreements may be exempted where they generate efficiencies or economic benefits, impose only indispensable restrictions and do not eliminate competition in a substantial part of the market.

Separately, anti-competitive agreements and concerted practices may attract administrative fines of up to 10% of the undertaking’s worldwide turnover, subject to the statutory minimum.

Under Government Ordinance No 21/1992 on consumer protection, breaches of consumer protection requirements generally constitute administrative offences providing that the conduct does not amount to a criminal offence. Relevant breaches include, among others, placing products or services on the market that may endanger consumers’ lives, health or safety; producing, importing or marketing counterfeit products; and breaches of product safety and consumer information requirements.

Depending on the infringement, administrative fines may be imposed, together with complementary measures such as the temporary or permanent cessation of the marketing of products or provision of services; withdrawal of dangerous, counterfeit or expired products from the market; and other corrective measures.

Under Law No 363/2007, unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices, including misleading and aggressive practices, constitute administrative offences. They are generally punishable by fines ranging from RON10,000 to RON100,000 (approximately EUR2,000 to EUR20,000), depending on the infringement. The limits are doubled where the practice affects more than 100 consumers.       

The main forms of cybercrime – including illegal access to computer systems, unlawful interception of computer data, alteration or unauthorised transfer of data, disruption of computer systems, and illegal operations involving devices, software or access credentials intended for cybercrime – are illegal under Romanian law. Depending on the offence and its circumstances, penalties generally range from three months’ to seven years’ imprisonment, with fines available for certain offences.

The Criminal Code also regards computer fraud – involving interference with computer data or systems to obtain a material benefit and cause damage – as illegal, punishable by two to seven years’ imprisonment, and computer forgery – involving manipulation of computer data to produce false data intended to have illegal consequences – punishable by one to five years’ imprisonment.

The unauthorised disclosure or use of non-public information or trade secrets is also sanctioned under the Criminal Code and Law No 11/1991, with penalties varying according to the conduct and circumstances.

The main offences relating to financial, trade and customs sanctions are provided under Government Emergency Ordinance No 202/2008.

These include making funds or economic resources available, directly or indirectly, to sanctioned persons or entities; failing to freeze funds or economic resources subject to sanctions; carrying out prohibited transactions with third countries or entities controlled by sanctioned countries or entities; and the prohibited import, export, sale, purchase, transfer, transit or transport of goods to sanctioned countries or entities, including the provision of related brokering or technical assistance services.

The law also incriminates the provision of prohibited financial or other services, the circumvention of EU sanctions, including through concealment of sanctioned assets or misleading information regarding ownership or beneficial ownership, failure to provide information required under applicable sanctions, and breach of the conditions of authorisations permitting otherwise restricted activities.

These crimes are generally punishable by one to five years’ imprisonment and the prohibition of certain rights, with higher penalties applying in aggravated cases, including where the conduct involves amounts of at least EUR100,000, military goods or certain dual-use items.

Where the breach does not constitute a criminal offence, failure to comply with applicable sanctions restrictions and obligations generally constitutes an administrative offence punishable by a fine ranging from RON10,000 to RON100,000 (approximately EUR2,000 to EUR20,000), together with confiscation where applicable. Additional sanctions may include the suspension or withdrawal of licences or authorisations.

Romanian criminal law does not provide for a single general offence expressly designated as “concealment”. Depending on the conduct involved, concealment may fall, in particular, within the scope of favouring the offender or concealment of criminally derived property.

Favouring the Offender

The offence consists of providing assistance to a person who has committed an act provided for by criminal law, for the purpose of preventing or hindering a criminal investigation, preventing that person from being held criminally liable, or preventing the enforcement of a custodial sentence or measure.

Accordingly, it must be established that:

• the person assisted has committed an act provided for by criminal law;
• the defendant provided assistance to that person; and
• the assistance was provided for the specific purpose of preventing or hindering the investigation, criminal liability or the enforcement of a custodial sentence or measure.

There is no exhaustive list of predicate offences. The underlying conduct may consist of any act provided for by criminal law.

The offence is punishable by one to five years’ imprisonment or a fine.

The penalty imposed on the person favouring the offender may not exceed the statutory penalty applicable to the offence committed by the principal offender.

A person who committed or participated in the underlying offence cannot be separately liable for favouring the offender where the favouring relates to the offence in which that person was involved.

Concealment of Criminally Derived Property

The offence consists of receiving, acquiring or transforming an asset, or facilitating its disposal, where the defendant knew or could have foreseen from the specific circumstances that the asset originated from an act provided for by criminal law, even if the defendant did not know the precise nature of that act.

Accordingly, it must be established that:

• an asset originated from an act provided for by criminal law;
• the defendant received, acquired or transformed the asset, or facilitated its disposal; and
• the defendant knew or could have foreseen from the specific circumstances that the asset had a criminal origin.

Any act provided for by criminal law capable of generating the relevant asset may constitute the predicate conduct.

Concealment is punishable by one to five years’ imprisonment or a fine.

The penalty imposed for concealment may not exceed the statutory penalty applicable to the offence committed by the principal offender.

As a rule, the above offence is a separate subsequent offence committed by a person other than the perpetrator or a participant in the predicate offence. A person who participated in the predicate offence from which the asset originates cannot incur separate criminal liability for concealment of that asset. For example, where there was a prior agreement, made before the commission of the predicate offence, to conceal the assets to be obtained from it, the person concerned will be held liable as an accomplice to the predicate offence rather than for concealment.

Under the general rules of the Romanian Criminal Code, a person who instigates or assists another person in committing a corporate offence may be held criminally liable.

An instigator is a person who, with intent, induces another person to commit an offence, while an accomplice is a person who, with intent, facilitates or assists in any manner the commission of an offence. A person who knowingly promises, before or during the commission of the offence, to conceal the proceeds of the offence or to assist the offender in evading criminal liability is also considered an accomplice, even if the promise is not subsequently fulfilled.

As a general rule, the instigator and accomplice are subject to the same statutory penalty range as the principal offender, although the actual sentence is determined by reference to their individual contribution and the circumstances of the offence.

Offences in relation to money laundering are criminalised under Law No 129/2019 on the prevention and combating of money laundering and terrorist financing.

The offences include, among others:

• converting or transferring property known to derive from criminal activity in order to conceal its illicit origin or assist the offender in evading prosecution or punishment;
• concealing or disguising the true nature, source, location, movement or ownership of such property; and
• acquiring, possessing or using property known to derive from criminal activity, where committed by a person other than the perpetrator of the predicate offence.

Money laundering is punishable by three to ten years’ imprisonment, and attempted money laundering is also punishable. Where the offence is committed by a reporting entity in the course of its professional activity, this constitutes an aggravating circumstance. Legal persons may also incur criminal liability and may be subject to a criminal fine and additional penalties.

The law imposes specific anti-money laundering obligations on reporting entities, including suspicious transaction reporting, customer due diligence, enhanced due diligence in higher-risk situations, record-keeping and the implementation of internal AML policies and controls.

Failure to comply with these obligations generally constitutes an administrative offence, provided that the conduct does not amount to a criminal offence. Supervision and enforcement are carried out, depending on the entity concerned, by the National Office for the Prevention and Control of Money Laundering, the National Bank of Romania, the Financial Supervisory Authority, the National Agency for Fiscal Administration, and the National Gambling Office.

Sanctions include administrative fines and may also include additional measures such as confiscation, suspension or withdrawal of authorisations or licences, blocking of bank accounts, closure of branches and orders to cease the unlawful conduct. For certain regulated entities, fines may reach RON23 million (approximately EUR4.6 million) or 10% of total annual turnover.

ESG-related misconduct may constitute criminal offences under the Criminal Code and specific legislation.

Environmental Offences

Environmental offences are primarily regulated by Government Emergency Ordinance No 195/2005 on environmental protection and Government Emergency Ordinance No 92/2021 on waste.

With respect to environmental protection, relevant offences include, among others, the discharge of hazardous waste or substances into the atmosphere or soil, the unlawful operation of installations involving dangerous activities or substances, and continuing an activity that caused pollution after an order to cease such activity. Depending on the offence, penalties range from three months to seven years’ imprisonment or a criminal fine.

Concerning waste, it is provided that the unlawful collection, transport or recovery of waste; and the burning, burial, abandonment or unauthorised disposal of waste, among other actions, are illegal where the quantity or impact cannot be considered negligible. Such offences are punishable by one to five years’ imprisonment or a criminal fine. More serious waste-related offences, including certain unlawful cross-border waste transfers and breaches concerning hazardous waste, are punishable by two to seven years’ imprisonment.

Social Offences

The Romanian Criminal Code criminalises several forms of serious exploitation and human rights violations, including slavery, trafficking in persons, trafficking in minors, and forced or compulsory labour.

Placing or holding a person in slavery, as well as trafficking in slaves, is punishable by five to 12 years’ imprisonment and the prohibition of certain rights.

The recruitment, transportation, transfer, harbouring or receipt of a person for the purpose of exploitation, where carried out through coercion, abduction, deception, abuse of authority or by taking advantage of the victim’s vulnerability, among other means, represents the offence of trafficking in persons and is punishable by five to 12 years’ imprisonment and the prohibition of certain rights, with aggravated forms carrying a penalty of seven to 15 years’ imprisonment.

It is also a crime to subject a person, outside the cases permitted by law, to work against their will or to do compulsory labour. The offence is punishable by one to three years’ imprisonment.

Governance Offences

Corruption offences are covered by the Romanian Criminal Code and have been addressed above under bribery and influence offences, fraud and money laundering.

Supply Chain Monitoring Obligations

Romanian law does not impose a general requirement on companies to monitor their entire supply chains. However, certain companies may be subject to specific due diligence and monitoring requirements under EU legislation, depending on their size, activities and sector.

Romanian criminal law does not currently provide for a general standalone criminal offence specifically covering the misuse of artificial intelligence or automated decision-making systems. However, depending on the circumstances and the manner in which such technologies are used, conduct involving AI or automated systems may fall within existing offences, including computer fraud, computer forgery, market manipulation or other fraud-related offences.

Algorithmic Trading

As regards algorithmic trading, Law No 126/2018 on Markets in Financial Instruments defines the concept of algorithmic trading and lays down specific requirements applicable to its use. A breach of the statutory requirements governing algorithmic trading constitutes an administrative offence and is punishable by a warning or fine.

However, where an algorithm is effectively used for the purpose of manipulating the market, algorithmic trading may amount to market manipulation within the meaning of EU Regulation No 596/2014 on market abuse, where the conduct produces the manipulative effects specified by the regulation.

Similarly, Law No 24/2017 on issuers of financial instruments and market operations expressly provides that market manipulation may be carried out by placing orders on a trading venue, including by cancelling or modifying such orders, through any available means of trading, including electronic means such as algorithmic and high-frequency trading strategies, where the conduct:

• disrupts or delays the functioning of the trading system of the relevant trading venue or creates conditions likely to produce such effects;
• makes it more difficult for other persons to identify genuine orders in the trading system, including by entering orders which overload or destabilise the order book; and
• creates, or is likely to create, a false or misleading signal as to the supply of, demand for or price of a financial instrument, particularly by entering orders intended to initiate or exacerbate a trend.

Law No 24/2017 further provides that market manipulation carried out in the circumstances described above constitutes a criminal offence punishable by imprisonment from one to five years.

Artificial Intelligence

The use of AI may constitute computer fraud where it involves the manipulation of computer data or interference with the functioning of a computer system for the purpose of obtaining a material benefit and causing damage. It may also constitute computer forgery where computer data is unlawfully introduced, altered or deleted, or access to such data is unlawfully restricted, resulting in false computer data intended to be used for the purpose of producing illegal consequences.

In addition to the criminal-law framework, the use of AI systems is subject to EU Regulation 2024/1689 – the EU AI Act, which establishes a regulatory framework for AI systems and expressly prohibits certain AI practices.

The EU AI Act prohibits certain AI practices under Article 5, including manipulative or deceptive AI systems, certain forms of social scoring, biometric categorisation and identification, emotion recognition and AI-based risk assessments.

Breaches of these prohibitions may result in administrative fines of up to EUR35 million or 7% of the undertaking’s total worldwide annual turnover, whichever is higher.

Accordingly, misuse of AI may constitute an administrative infringement under the EU AI Act, while criminal liability may arise where the use of AI also satisfies the elements of an existing criminal offence under Romanian law.

Automated Decision-Making

As regards automated decision-making in financial or commercial contexts, Romanian law does not provide for a standalone criminal offence. However, the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) applies where decisions based solely on automated processing, including profiling, produce legal or similarly significant effects on individuals. This may include, for example, certain automated decisions concerning creditworthiness, access to financial services or contractual relationships.

These provisions may be particularly relevant in financial or commercial contexts where decisions concerning individuals are taken exclusively through automated processing and produce legal or similarly significant effects, including, for example, certain decisions concerning access to financial or commercial services.

Such automated decision-making is permitted only in the circumstances provided by Article 22 of the GDPR and subject to the applicable safeguards. Breaches may give rise to administrative liability under the GDPR rather than constituting a standalone criminal offence.

Depending on the circumstances, conduct involving crypto-assets may fall within the scope of general offences under the Romanian Criminal Code, including fraud, computer fraud, fraudulent financial transactions, as well as computer-related offences, such as access to a computer system. Crypto-assets may also be involved in money laundering, where they represent proceeds of criminal activity or are used to conceal or disguise the illicit origin of assets. In addition, EU Regulation 2023/1114 on Markets in Crypto-Assets (MiCA) establishes specific prohibitions concerning market abuse in relation to crypto-assets, including insider dealing, unlawful disclosure of inside information, and market manipulation.

Definition and Classification of Crypto-Assets

Romanian law does not classify crypto-assets generally as securities, commodities or a separate category of property. Instead, Article 2 of Law No 129/2019 defines a “crypto-asset” by reference to EU Regulation 2023/1114, namely, as a digital representation of a value or of a right that is able to be transferred and stored electronically using distributed ledger technology or similar technology. Under EU Regulation 2023/1114, crypto-assets are divided into three main categories: asset-referenced tokens, e-money tokens and other crypto-assets. However, this classification is not exhaustive for all digital assets: a crypto-asset that qualifies, for example, as a financial instrument, deposit or fund falls outside the EU Regulation 2023/1114 regime and is subject to the corresponding sector-specific legislation. Accordingly, the legal characteristics of the particular crypto-asset determine the applicable regulatory and enforcement framework.

Crypto-Asset Service Providers

Crypto-asset service providers are subject to both authorisation and ongoing compliance requirements. Under Article 59 of EU Regulation 2023/1114, crypto-asset services may generally be provided in the EU only by an authorised crypto-asset service provider or by certain financial entities permitted to provide such services. Crypto-asset service providers are also subject to organisational, prudential, governance, client-asset protection and conflict-of-interest requirements. In addition, crypto-asset service providers qualify as reporting entities under Law No 129/2019 and are therefore subject to AML obligations, including customer due diligence, identification of beneficial owners, ongoing monitoring, record-keeping and suspicious transaction reporting. Non-compliance may result in administrative sanctions and supervisory measures under EU Regulation 2023/1114 and Law No 129/2019, including fines and, where applicable, suspension or withdrawal of authorisation.

Sanctions and Penalties

The constituent elements of the relevant offences have been addressed in the other sections above. By way of indication, crypto-related criminal conduct may attract penalties ranging from six months to ten years’ imprisonment, depending on the offence and the circumstances of the case. In addition, breaches of EU Regulation 2023/1114 on market abuse may give rise to administrative sanctions and measures.

Common defences for white-collar offences include the absence of one or more constituent elements of the offence, particularly the required form of intent or, where relevant, negligence, as well as the absence of the specific purpose required by certain offences.

Other defences frequently relevant in white-collar cases concern the absence of participation in the alleged conduct, lack of knowledge of the unlawful conduct, absence of causation or damage where these constitute elements of the offence, and the expiry of the applicable limitation period.

Compliance Programmes as a Mitigating Factor

An effective compliance programme does not constitute a standalone statutory defence to criminal liability under Romanian law and does not automatically exempt either a natural person or a legal entity from liability. However, as addressed in 3.3 Anti-Bribery Regulation, in foreign bribery cases, an effective internal organisation, management and control programme designed to prevent the offence may constitute a judicial mitigating circumstance.

The existence and effective implementation of a compliance programme may be relevant when assessing the criminal liability of a legal entity. A legal entity may be held criminally liable for offences committed in the pursuit of its objects or interests or on its behalf. Accordingly, evidence that the company had implemented and effectively enforced appropriate compliance procedures may be relevant to establishing whether the conditions for attributing the offence to the legal entity are met, although this does not operate as an automatic defence.

Compliance measures may also be relevant to the individualisation of the penalty and to the assessment of the circumstances of the offence and the conduct of the legal entity.

Therefore, unlike in jurisdictions recognising a specific compliance defence for particular corporate offences, Romanian law does not provide for a general offence-specific defence based solely on the existence of an effective compliance programme.

Romanian criminal law does not provide for a general de minimis exception applicable to white-collar offences. As a rule, where all the constituent elements of an offence are met, the relatively low value of the damage or benefit does not, in itself, exclude criminal liability.

Statutory Thresholds and Timelines

However, certain offences contain specific statutory thresholds or materiality requirements. For example, under Law No 241/2005 on preventing and combating tax evasion, certain VAT fraud schemes affecting the state budget constitute the specific offence only where they cause a reduction of the state budget resources of at least EUR1 million. Similarly, certain cross-border VAT fraud schemes affecting the EU budget where the total damage is at least EUR10 million may be sanctioned. Where the amount involved falls below these thresholds, the respective specific offence is not established, although the conduct may potentially fall within another criminal provision.

Tax legislation also provides examples of special grounds for non-punishment or reduction of penalties linked to the amount of damage and its recovery. Under Article 10 of Law No 241/2005, for certain tax-evasion offences, full payment of the damage, together with the additional amounts, interest and penalties prescribed by law, may result in non-punishment where payment is made within the statutory time limits.

In particular, offences consisting of failure to withhold or collect taxes and/or contributions, unlawfully obtaining money from the consolidated general budget, and tax evasion are subject to the same specific non-punishment and sentence-reduction mechanisms, depending primarily on the amount of the damage and the stage of the proceedings at which the amount is fully recovered.

Where the damage to the consolidated general budget does not exceed EUR1 million, the offence is not punishable if, within a maximum of 30 days following completion of the inspection by the competent authorities, the damage is paid in full, together with an additional 15% of its value, interest and penalties. In this case, the competent authorities do not refer the matter to the criminal investigation authorities.

Where the damage is paid in full by the first court hearing, the statutory sentencing limits are reduced by half and, where the recovered damage does not exceed EUR1 million, a fine may be imposed. If full payment is made after the first court hearing but before the final determination of the case, the statutory sentencing limits are reduced by one third.

Additionally, for damage not exceeding EUR1 million, the offence is also not punishable where the damage is paid in full together with the applicable statutory surcharge, interest and penalties amounting to 25% during the criminal investigation; 50% during the preliminary chamber proceedings or trial, before the first-instance judgment; or 100% during the appeal proceedings, before a final judgment is delivered.

Voluntary Disclosure and Co-Operation

A separate reduction applies in the case of voluntary disclosure and co-operation. If the offender reports the offence to the criminal investigation or tax authorities while the criminal activity is ongoing or within one year from its completion – before the criminal investigation authorities have otherwise been notified – and subsequently facilitates the establishment of the truth and the prosecution of one or more participants, the special statutory sentencing limits are reduced by half.

Waiver of Prosecution

Another example is waiver of prosecution. For offences punishable by a fine or imprisonment of up to seven years, the prosecutor may waive prosecution where, having regard to the circumstances and consequences of the offence and the other statutory criteria, there is no public interest in pursuing the case. This does not constitute a de minimis exception and does not mean that the conduct falls outside the scope of the criminal offence; rather, it is a procedural mechanism allowing prosecution to be discontinued in appropriate cases.

There are no industries or sectors generally exempt from Romanian white-collar criminal law. Nevertheless, individual offences may apply only where particular statutory conditions, thresholds, regulated activities or categories of persons are involved.

A defendant who admits the charges may either enter into a plea agreement with the prosecutor or opt for the simplified trial procedure, in each case benefiting from reduced sentencing limits, as explained in 1.6 Sentencing and Penalties.

Self-disclosure and co-operation with the authorities are not general statutory mitigating factors under Romanian law, but may be taken into account when determining the sentence. In certain cases, the Criminal Code also allows the court to consider efforts to mitigate the consequences of the offence as a judicial mitigating circumstance.

Law No 361/2022 provides protection to persons who report breaches of law based on information obtained in a work-related context, including employees, self-employed persons, shareholders and members of management bodies. Anonymous reporting is also protected.

Whistle-blowers are protected against retaliation, including dismissal, demotion, disciplinary sanctions, harassment and discrimination. In proceedings challenging retaliatory measures, the burden of proof lies with the employer. Whistle-blowers may also benefit from exemption from liability, compensation for damage suffered and, in certain cases, free legal assistance.

Romanian law does not provide for financial rewards or bounties for whistle-blowers. Incentives instead consist of protection against retaliation, confidentiality, remedial measures and assistance from the National Integrity Agency.

Private entities with at least 50 employees, as well as certain regulated entities regardless of their size, must establish internal reporting channels ensuring confidentiality, independent handling of reports, appropriate follow-up and feedback to the whistle-blower.

Anonymous reports are permitted and must be examined where they contain sufficient indications of a breach of law. They can be submitted to the National Integrity Agency or other competent authorities.

In multi-jurisdictional white-collar cases, defence strategies must take into account parallel investigations, differences in procedural rules, the cross-border use and admissibility of evidence, legal privilege and the risk that statements or documents disclosed in one jurisdiction may be used in another. Extradition or surrender risks may also need to be considered.

Defence counsel in the relevant jurisdictions may therefore co-ordinate their strategies to ensure consistency and assess the cross-border implications of procedural decisions.

Romanian law does not provide for a formal co-ordinated defence mechanism. Co-ordination is generally undertaken between counsel in the jurisdictions concerned, subject to applicable confidentiality, professional secrecy and conflict-of-interest rules.

Cross-border co-operation between authorities is governed by Law No 302/2004, applicable EU instruments and international treaties, and may include mutual legal assistance, European investigation orders, extradition or surrender, and joint investigation teams. The ne bis in idem principle may also limit parallel or successive proceedings concerning the same conduct.

Since the entry into force of the new Romanian Criminal Code and Criminal Procedure Code in 2014, the legal framework governing the investigation and sanctioning of white-collar offences has undergone continuous development. This evolution has been shaped both by constitutional court decisions concerning provisions of criminal procedure and by successive legislative reforms. More recent developments include, by way of example, the amendments concerning the prevention and combating of bribery of foreign public officials in international business transactions, addressed in 3.3 Anti-Bribery Regulation.

Against this background, the Romanian white-collar enforcement framework may be expected to continue evolving, with further legislative developments likely in the coming years.