Corruption cases are built on intercepted communications, informant reports and investigations that begin long before you learn you are under scrutiny. By the time you receive the first procedural document, the investigation already has months behind it. That is why my first check is not “what does the evidence say”, but “who had the authority to gather it”.
The types of accusation
Taking a bribe, giving a bribe, trading in influence, buying influence — under the Criminal Code and Law no. 78/2000 on preventing, detecting and sanctioning corruption. Alongside these, abuse of office (Article 297 of the Criminal Code), an accusation frequently brought against public officials and elected local representatives, and conflict of interest.
Jurisdiction: the argument that can undo an entire case
Corruption offences are investigated by specialised bodies — the National Anticorruption Directorate (D.N.A.) and, for certain categories, the General Anticorruption Directorate (D.G.A.) within the Ministry of Internal Affairs. Each has a jurisdiction strictly delimited by law.
Where evidence is gathered by a body that had no jurisdiction to do so, it can be annulled. Not “given less weight” — annulled, meaning removed from the file altogether.
From my practice: in a case falling within the jurisdiction of the D.N.A., where the client was accused of bribery and complicity in abuse of office, the Cluj Court of Appeal returned the file to the prosecutor, at the prosecutor’s own request, after annulling all evidence unlawfully gathered by the D.G.A.
Every case is different, and an outcome obtained in one matter is no guarantee of the same result in another.
The preliminary chamber: the stage no one should waste
Between committal for trial and the trial proper, Romanian procedure provides a stage in which the lawfulness of the referral to the court, of the gathering of evidence and of the investigative acts is examined. It is the procedural moment at which nullities are raised.
In corruption cases, where the prosecution relies heavily on interceptions and investigative acts, the preliminary chamber is often the stage that determines the fate of the case.
What I check in every file
- Material and personal jurisdiction of the body that conducted the investigation and gathered the evidence.
- The lawfulness of special surveillance methods. Whether the authorisation existed and was reasoned, whether its limits were respected, how the recordings were preserved.
- The credibility of the informant and their procedural interest — including the benefits they obtain by reporting.
- The constituent elements of abuse of office: precisely which rule is said to have been breached, and whether it has the rank required by Constitutional Court case law.
- Whether real harm exists and its causal link to the conduct alleged.
- Asset freezing measures and their proportionality.
Confidentiality
In these cases public exposure is often a problem in itself. Any communication between client and lawyer is covered by professional privilege and cannot be used to accuse you. I have written on the limits of that protection, and on the offence of disclosure of professional secrets by a lawyer, in Penalmente Relevant.
When to call
At the first sign — an invitation to a hearing, a search, a summons. Not after committal for trial. Arguments on jurisdiction and on the lawfulness of evidence are prepared in advance and deployed at the right procedural moment; raised too late, they are lost for good.