Bribery and Corruption in Romania

1. Legal Framework

1.1. What is the legal framework for bribery and corruption in your jurisdiction?

Corruption represents a deviation from normalcy and is an integral part of criminal phenomena in any society, manifesting as a widespread deviant and harmful behavior among officials and elected representatives.

Socially, corruption is defined as the systematic and unsanctioned violation of organizational or institutional norms by members who, by virtue of their authority, misuse resources for purposes other than those intended by the organization.

Due to its consequences, implications, and negative effects on the community as a whole, corruption represents a state of normative and moral imbalance in that community, severely affecting social relationships both at an institutional and interpersonal level.

In the public sphere, corruption is generally understood to mean any deviation from morality, honesty, and duty that harms an individual’s or the public interest in favor of another well-defined entity, typically a private one.

The Romanian Criminal Code incriminates corruption crimes in Title V, Chapter I, including four different forms of incrimination: taking a bribe, giving a bribe, influence peddling, and buying influence.

Additionally, the Romanian Criminal Code incriminates acts of corruption committed by members of arbitration panels or in connection with these members, as well as by foreign officials or in connection with them.

The Criminal Code also maps out in its content corruption offenses committed by so-called private officials, who are explicitly defined by Romanian criminal law.

Furthermore, the Romanian Criminal Code incriminates acts of corruption committed by private officials, explicitly defined by Romanian criminal law.

Lastly, Law No. 78/2000 on the prevention, discovery, and sanctioning of corruption offenses specifically regulates the legal treatment of corruption offenses committed by public officials.

1.2. Which international anti-corruption conventions apply?

In Romania, the following anti-corruption conventions are applicable:

1. The United Nations Convention against Corruption (New York, October 31, 2003) ratified by Law No. 365 from September 15, 2004.

2. The Criminal Law Convention on Corruption (Strasbourg, January 27, 1999) ratified by Law No. 27 from January 16, 2002.

3. The Civil Law Convention on Corruption (Strasbourg, November 4, 1999) ratified by Law No. 147 from April 1, 2002.

4. The Convention on the Fight Against Corruption involving officials of the European Communities or officials of the Member States of the European Union (May 26, 1997), effective September 28, 2005, through an EU Council decision.

1.3. What is the definition of bribery?

Bribery offenses are considered serious as they undermine fundamental principles of integrity, impartiality, and equality before the law.

Under the provisions of Article 289 of the Criminal Code, taking a bribe is defined as a public official who, directly or indirectly, for himself or 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, speeding up, or delaying of an act within their official duties or in connection with performing an act contrary to these duties.

Giving a bribe is the crime committed by an individual or legal entity of promising, offering, or giving, directly or indirectly, money or other benefits to a public official in exchange for performing, delaying, expediting, or not performing acts that fall within the public official’s duties.

1.4. Is private sector bribery covered by law? If yes, what is the relevant legislation?

Corruption crimes committed by private sector officials are also regulated by criminal law.

Article 308 of the Criminal Code refers to corruption offenses within the same regulation, specifying which private officials can be active subjects of corruption offenses.

1.5. What is the definition of a public official and a foreign public official? Are employees at state-owned or state-controlled enterprises treated differently? Are there official lists of public officials, offices, or state-owned or state-controlled enterprises?

A public official is defined by Article 175 of the Criminal Code as a person who, permanently or temporarily, with or without remuneration:

a) Exercises duties and responsibilities established by law to implement legislative, executive, or judicial power.

b) Holds a public office or public dignitary or position of any kind.

c) Exercises, alone or with others, duties related to the realization of the activities of an autonomous regie or other economic operator or legal entity with full or majority state capital.

Additionally, a person who performs a public service for which they have been appointed by public authorities or who is subject to the control or supervision of these authorities with regard to the fulfillment of that public service is also considered a public official in the sense of criminal law.

Foreign public officials are individuals holding similar positions in public authorities or institutions but within a public authority or institution in another country. The definition and regulations regarding foreign public officials are often included in international legislation and anti-corruption conventions.

In the context of the OECD Convention on Combating Bribery of Foreign Public Officials in international business transactions and other international legal instruments, a foreign public official is defined in several ways, including any person holding a legislative, executive, administrative, or judicial mandate in a foreign country, any person exercising a public function for a foreign country, and any official or agent of a public international organization such as the United Nations or the European Union.

From the perspective of criminal law, employees at state-owned or state-controlled enterprises are not treated differently from other public officials who can be active subjects of corruption offenses.

In Romania, there are official lists of public officials, institutions, and state-owned or state-controlled enterprises. These lists are compiled and managed by competent public institutions in accordance with the national legislation on transparency and access to public information.

For example, there are public registers and records that include information about public officials from various branches of central and local public administration, as well as about state-owned or state-controlled structures and economic entities

These registers are important for ensuring transparency and accountability in the management of public resources and interactions with the business environment. They facilitate the monitoring and evaluation of the activities of institutions and their employees, thus contributing to the prevention and combating of corruption in public administration and the state sector.

1.6. Are there any regulations on political donations?

In Romania, there are strict regulations regarding political donations, aimed at ensuring transparency and preventing detrimental influences in political life. According to electoral legislation and rules on political party financing, it is mandatory for political parties and candidates to declare and publish the sources and amounts of donations received during and outside election campaigns.

There are also limits on the amounts of money that political parties and candidates can receive from donations, and certain categories of donors, such as foreign legal entities or companies with public sector contracts, may be prohibited from making political donations.

Competent authorities closely monitor these donations to ensure compliance with the law and to prevent any illegal practices or money laundering. These measures are fundamental for promoting transparency and integrity in the democratic process in Romania and, of course, to avoid as much as possible the incidence of corruption crimes.

Parties are legally required to report annually the income from membership fees, donations, and other loans, with the report then published in the Official Gazette of Romania.

1.7. Are there any defenses available?

Corruption crimes and their sanctions are expressly statutory in the Criminal Code, however, there are several legal instruments that can be used in the defense of the perpetrator to be exonerated from criminal liability.

Firstly, for these crimes to meet the conditions of typicity, it is essential that the acts are committed intentionally. If the act is committed negligently, it can no longer be considered a criminal offense.

Additionally, in cases of bribery and influence peddling, the briber/perpetrator is not punished if they report the act before the criminal investigation body has been notified about it.

Secondly, the perpetrator can invoke the existence of justifiable or excusable causes, or even contest the existence of the facts as described in the indictment/notification, or argue that the evidence presented is insufficient to prove their guilt beyond any reasonable doubt.

Justifiable and excusable causes can only be applied after a concrete evaluation of the facts by judicial bodies in each case, to determine whether the acts were justified by a solid and statutory reason or if the act cannot be attributed to the person according to the provisions of the law.

Thirdly, there are specific defenses for corruption offenses, which can be developed depending on the nature and object of the offenses, referring to the existence or lack of concrete evidence regarding the existence of the act, the criminal intent of the perpetrator, or other conditions of typicity of the acts.

1.8. Is there an exemption for facilitation payments?

In the legislation of certain countries, a facilitation payment is a payment made to ensure that officials perform their duties correctly. In their view, this practice does not lead to preferential treatment where the payment is made in addition to the duties owed.

Therefore, a facilitation payment is distinguished from a bribe in that it is made to ensure that an official performs their duties correctly, while a bribe is a payment made to ensure that the official acts according to the briber’s interests (whether performing duties incorrectly or not at all, with delay, or with speed).

In Romania, the concept of facilitation payments is not regulated and therefore does not benefit from a specific legal exemption regarding criminal liability for corruption. These payments are considered illegal under anti-corruption legislation and are treated the same as any other type of bribe or corrupt act.

The Romanian Criminal Code and other relevant regulations strictly prohibit any form of bribery, whether involving large or small amounts. Thus, facilitation payments, often perceived as necessary to expedite administrative processes or obtain immediate benefits, are considered crimes and are subject to legal sanctions.

In practice, the legal consequences of involvement in facilitation payments can include criminal criminalities and severe damage to the reputation of the individual or company involved. Therefore, strict adherence to ethical and legal standards is essential for all those involved in the business environment in Romania.

1.9. What are the criminal sanctions for bribery? Are there any civil and administrative sanctions related to bribery cases?

In Romania, the legal system places a strong emphasis on combating corruption by applying severe sanctions for bribery offenses. These actions are considered serious and are treated with utmost seriousness in criminal legislation.

The criminality for the standard form of the offense of accepting bribes, as provided by Article 289 of the Criminal Code, is imprisonment from three to 10 years and the prohibition of exercising the right to hold a public function or to exercise the profession or activity in which the offense was committed.

The crime also has a counterpart in Law No. 78/2000, which constitutes the aggravated version of it and is punishable by imprisonment from four to 13 years and four months, along with the prohibition of exercising the right to hold a public function or to exercise the profession or activity in which the offense was committed.

Additionally, the money, valuables, or any other goods effectively given are subject to confiscation, and if these cannot be found, confiscation by equivalent is ordered. Romanian legislation distinguishes between special confiscation, which applies exclusively to the convicted person, and extended confiscation, which can also apply to goods transferred to third parties or transferred by the convicted person or a third party to a family member or a legal entity controlled by the convicted person.

Regarding the standard form of giving a bribe, the sanction is imprisonment from two to seven years. If the bribery involves a private official, the criminality is imprisonment from one year and four months to four years and eight months.

It is noteworthy that the perpetrator may not be punished if they report the act of giving a bribe before the criminal investigation body has been notified about it.

In terms of confiscation, only the special form of confiscation of the money, goods, or valuables offered or given is possible. If these cannot be found, the same rules as for special confiscation in the case of accepting bribes will apply, and confiscation by equivalent will be ordered.

On the other hand, administrative sanctions can include temporary or permanent prohibitions from accessing European funds or participating in public procurements, or asset confiscation.

Competent administrative authorities, such as the National Integrity Agency or other control and supervision institutions, have the role of making proposals regarding the application of such sanctions in accordance with current legislation to discourage and punish corruption in all its forms.

1.10. Does the national bribery and corruption law apply beyond national boundaries?

In Romania, national laws on bribery and corruption generally apply within the country’s territory and to its citizens. These laws are designed to combat acts of corruption within national borders and to ensure the integrity of the country’s judicial and administrative systems.

Regarding extraterritorial aspects, Romania can exercise jurisdiction in cases where corruption involves its national resources or interests, even in situations where the crimes were committed outside the country, by applying the principles of reality, universality, and personality of criminal law, as provided by the Criminal Code.

Additionally, as part of the European Union, Romanian judicial bodies have access to modern judicial tools that enable direct cooperation with competent authorities from other member states, at least when it comes to blocking assets or funds or conducting urgent investigative activities.

Furthermore, Romania is part of various international anti-corruption conventions, which facilitate international cooperation in the investigation and prosecution of cross-border corruption crimes.

Moreover, the provisions of Article 294 of the Criminal Code incriminate corruption offenses committed by foreign officials or in connection with them, who do not have the status of a public official under the criminal law, namely:

a) Officials or persons working based on a contract of employment or others exercising similar duties within a public international organization of which Romania is part;

b) Members of parliamentary assemblies of international organizations to which Romania is part of;

c) Officials or persons working based on a contract of employment or others exercising similar duties within the European Union;

d) Persons exercising judicial functions within international courts whose jurisdiction is accepted by Romania, as well as officials from the registries of these courts;

e) Officials of a foreign state;

f) Members of parliamentary or administrative assemblies of a foreign state;

g) Jurors within foreign courts.

In conclusion, Romania’s anti-corruption legislation primarily applies within its national borders, but there is also the possibility of exercising jurisdiction in certain extraterritorial cases, depending on specific circumstances and applicable legal provisions.

1.11. What are the limitation periods for bribery offenses?

In Romanian criminal law, the statute of limitations for criminal liability is fundamental in determining the period during which a person can be held accountable for committing crimes. These are regulated in accordance with Article 154 of the Criminal Code and vary depending on the severity of the committed crime.

For the crimes of taking and giving a bribe committed by or in connection with a public official, the statute of limitations is eight years.

For the crime of taking a bribe committed by a private official, the statute of limitations is eight years, while for the crime of giving a bribe in connection with a private official, the statute of limitations is five years.

In the case of the aggravated form provided by Law No. 78/2000, the statute of limitations is 10 years.

1.12. Are there any planned amendments or developments to the national bribery and corruption law?

The prevention and combating of corruption have been strengthened in both the public and private sectors through the introduction of measures to increase transparency in public acquisitions, public administration, and economic activities.

Additionally, Romania continues to be subject to monitoring and evaluations by international bodies such as the European Commission and GRECO, which have made recommendations to strengthen the fight against corruption and improve governance and transparency.

These initiatives reflect Romania’s ongoing commitment to combating corruption and strengthening the rule of law, aligning with international requirements and standards. They also represent constant efforts to address new challenges and improve the perception and effectiveness in combating this occurrence.

Regarding future legislative amendments in Romania related to combating corruption and improving the rule of law, it is important to note that these initiatives may vary depending on the political, and social context, and developments in the justice system. Generally, the Romanian government and parliament are engaged in a continuous process of reviewing and improving legislation to address new challenges and respond to international recommendations.

Potential directions for legislative amendments may could include strengthening the independence of the judicial system by continuing reforms to protect the independence of the judicial system and magistrates, including through legislative changes to strengthen the role and authority of the Superior Council of Magistracy (CSM), transparency, and integrity in public administration, adopting additional measures to increase transparency in public procurement, the decision-making process of public institutions, and the activities of local and central administration, as well as measures to combat money laundering and terrorism financing.

2. Gifts and Hospitality

2.1. How are gifts and hospitality treated?

As a general principle, any good, sum of money (regardless of amount), or service, whether quantifiable in money or not, offered to a public official in connection with their duties to perform an act, expedite it, or not perform a certain act can be the subject of a corruption crime (bribery).

The same treatment applies to a person who solicits or receives sums of money, goods, or services of any kind when they traffic their influence or imply that they will traffic their influence with public officials, being prohibited both under criminal law and other regulations in our country.

In this regard, Law No. 78/2000 for the prevention, discovery, and sanctioning of corruption crimes requires individuals who hold a public function, regardless of how they were appointed, within public authorities or institutions or who hold a control function, to declare, within 30 days of receipt, any direct or indirect donation or manual gifts received in connection with the exercise of their functions or duties, except those with symbolic value.

Thus, the Romanian legislator has instituted the obligation for public officials to declare any good, sum of money, or service received in connection with the performance, expedition, or non-performance of an act that falls within their duties, precisely to ensure an adequate level of transparency and to allow for appropriate checks that may be carried out later.

2.2. Does the law give any specific guidance on gifts and hospitality in the public and private sectors?

Law No. 251/2004 regarding certain measures towards goods received free of charge during protocol activities in the exercise of the mandate or function imposes an additional obligation on categories of public officials who hold leadership and control functions or who are required to declare their assets. Specifically, they must declare and present to the head of the institution, within 30 days of receipt, the goods they have received free of charge during protocol activities in the exercise of their mandate or function.

This legal provision aims to provide additional guarantees against the occurrence of corruption, especially applicable when a specific aid provided by the public official within the scope of their duties is not identified concretely, or a long period of time elapses between a donation and an act that falls within the official duties of the public official who received the donation.

In such a scenario, the law provides an alternative procedure to “sanction” the public official who still receives a good or service with a value greater than EUR 200. In this regard, a committee appointed by the head of the public authority or institution, consisting of three members, is established to evaluate and inventory the good/goods received by the public official.

If the value of the respective good or service exceeds EUR 200, the public official can pay the difference from EUR 200 to the full value of the good.

Otherwise, the good will be donated free of charge to another institution or authority that can benefit from the donation, or an auction can be organized for the purchase of the respective good. If the goods are valued at up to EUR 200, the public official may keep it.

2.3. Are there limitations on the value of benefits (gifts and hospitality) and/or any other benefit) that may be given to a government/public official? If so, please describe those limitations and their bases.

In the case of corruption crimes, the law does not establish a minimum threshold for incriminating the crimes of taking/giving a bribe, influence peddling/buying, or other corruption crimes.

Any good or service, regardless of whether it has material or non-material value, except for symbolic ones, can be considered the material object of corruption crimes.

The difficulty arises when a symbolic item also has a considerable value, as Romanian legislation does not establish clear criteria for evaluating goods or methods for determining the nature of the goods.

2.4. Are there any defenses or exceptions to the limitations (e.g., reasonable promotional expenses)?

Subject to a specific analysis of each case, defenses can certainly be formulated regarding the nature or purpose of the good or service received by the public official who benefited from it.

Law No. 251/2004 regarding certain measures related to goods received free of charge on the occasion of protocol actions regulates the categories of goods that can be donated to public officials, with the procedure for receiving these goods being expressly regulated. In this sense, classifying a donation as made under the conditions of Law No. 251/2004 can constitute a genuine defense in cases of corruption offenses.

Also, the most common defenses from the perspective of the received good can be those where it is not demonstrated that the public official conditioned the performance, speed up, or non-performance of an act within their official duties on receiving that benefit.

Moreover, given the nature of the evidence usually administered for corruption offenses, which generally includes results from technical surveillance measures, analysis, and, implicitly, a defense regarding the conduct of the public official both before and after the act can be carried out from the outset.

Thus, if the public official does not condition the performance, non-performance, or speed up of an act within their official duties on one of the activities circumscribed to the offense of accepting bribes, such as soliciting, receiving money, or other benefits they are not entitled to, or accepting the promise of such benefits, the offense of accepting bribes cannot be established. This approach to the case can be used as a defense in corruption offenses.

On the other hand, it should not be excluded that the defense may argue that the good was not given as a result of soliciting, using, or receiving a benefit, but rather that the public official received that good or service as a “reward” for their activity.

This “reward” can be considered a donation that must be declared by the public official, as long as its value is minimal. In case of non-declaration, the official would be sanctioned only with an administrative/disciplinary or pecuniary measure, and not as a criminal offense.

3. Anti-Corruption Compliance

3.1. Are companies required to have anti-corruption compliance procedures in place?

It is not mandatory for companies to have an anti-corruption policy or procedures. However, there is a growing trend for each company to implement internal procedures to inform about potential activities that could be incriminated as acts of corruption in the private sector.

Adopting anti-corruption policies or internal procedures can be a useful method for preventing the criminal liability of the legal entity.

3.2. Is there any official guidance on anti-corruption compliance?

The Romanian state constantly updates its anti-corruption strategy, with preventive policies promoted through the strategy covering a wide range of aspects aimed at fostering a culture of integrity as a commitment against so-called white-collar crime.

In this context, the National Anti-Corruption Strategy for the period 2021-2025 was developed and promoted, approved by Government Decision No. 1269/2021.

The National Anti-Corruption Strategy aims 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, in order to guarantee professionalism and efficiency in the public sector, the safety of citizens, and to support a developed social and economic environment.

3.3. Does the law protect whistleblowers reporting bribery and corruption allegations? If an EU member, was the EU Directive on Whistleblowing implemented in your jurisdiction?

The law protects whistleblowers who report acts of corruption. In addition to specific provisions in the Code of Criminal Procedure, which protect whistleblowers who report an offense even if they are also participants in committing the offense, there are special provisions for the statements that a witness in a criminal case regarding acts of corruption can give.

In this regard, the whistleblower (who has the status of informer or witness) may be subjected to protection measures, which can include:

- Surveillance and guarding of the witness’s home or providing temporary housing;

- Escorting and protecting the witness or their family members during travel;

- Non-public court sessions during the witness’s testimony;

- Hearing the witness without them being present in the courtroom, through audiovisual means, with distorted voice and image, when other measures are not sufficient;

- Protecting the witness’s identity and assigning a pseudonym under which they will testify.

Additionally, Romania has implemented EU Directive 2019/1937 of the European Parliament and Council of October 23, 2019, on the protection of persons who report breaches of Union law, through Law No. 361/2022 on the protection of whistleblowers in the public interest. Although this law is not a criminal law per se, it can overlap with certain situations where offenses may be identified.

3.3.1. What can be reported?

Any act of corruption known to the whistleblower can be reported, even if they are a participant in the commission of the offense.

In the area of corruption crimes provided for in Title V, Chapter I of the Criminal Code, only in the case of the offenses of giving a bribe (Article 290 of the Criminal Code) and buying influence (Article 292 of the Criminal Code), the legislator has provided for causes of impunity, meaning that the perpetrators are not punished if they adopt certain conduct, specifically reporting the acts of corruption before the criminal investigation bodies have been notified about them.

3.3.2. Who is protected?

The protection provided by the law benefits only the person who reports the act of corruption, as it is a personal measure.

The wherefore behind the legislator’s establishment of the cause of impunity, which perpetrators can benefit from in cases of giving bribes and buying influence, can be viewed from a dual perspective. Firstly, through the act of reporting, the briber and the buyer of influence present a reduced danger to public order, making it unnecessary to allocate resources for their punishment.

The initiative to report acts of corruption, despite the uncomfortable position it puts whistleblowers in, seems sufficient in the legislator’s view to ensure their impunity. Secondly, the establishment of the cause of impunity plays a prophylactic role in the matter of corruption.

Although the law requires bribers and buyers of influence to only report their own acts (self-reporting) to benefit from impunity, the reports made by these individuals practically target not only their own acts but also the corrupt acts of the officials involved in these illicit activities.

Consequently, the risk of being reported should serve as a deterrent for officials tempted to engage in criminal activities by committing acts of corruption.

In this context, removing corrupt or potentially corrupt elements from the public sector is a priority for society compared to punishing individuals who have occasionally found themselves in the unfortunate position of bribers or buyers of influence.

3.3.3. What are the conditions for protection?

The conditions for granting protection are met when there is a reasonable suspicion that the life, physical integrity, freedom, property, or professional activity of the witness or a family member could be endangered because of the information provided to the judicial authorities or their statements.

3.3.4. What companies does the relevant legislation apply to?

The relevant legislation can be applied to any company and even to individuals who engage in independent lucrative activities or in a commercial organizational form.

Although such a scenario is rarely encountered in practice, the law does not distinguish between a whistleblower being a natural person or a legal entity in the sense of criminal law, leading to the conclusion that any provision of the relevant criminal legislation is applicable to any person.

4. Corporate Criminal Liability

4.1. Can corporate entities be held liable for bribery and corruption? If so, what is the nature and scope of such liability?

Corporate entities can be held liable for the crimes of taking/giving a bribe and corruption, as the Criminal Code regulates the criminal liability of legal entities without distinguishing between the crimes for which this liability can be attracted.

It is worth noting that not all legal entities are subject to criminal liability. For criminal liability to be engaged, the entity must not belong to the category expressly exempted by law, namely the state, public authorities, and institutions only for offenses that cannot be subject to the private sector.

Regarding the engagement of criminal liability, the requirement for the existence of legal personality has been maintained as a premise for engaging the criminal liability of collective entities.

The criminal liability of a legal entity can move in for any crime as the principle of general criminal liability has been established, meaning that legal entities have a criminal capacity similar to that of natural persons.

The fine is the only principal sanction that can be applied to a legal entity and consists of the amount of money the legal entity is condemned to pay to the state. The general limits of the fine for legal entities range between RON 3,000 and RON 3 million, and the specific limits of the fine are determined by reference to the criminality provided for the crime in question.

Additionally, there are several complementary criminalities applicable to legal entities, such as the suspension of activity, closure of certain work points, prohibition from participating in public procurement procedures, placement under judicial supervision, public display of the conviction decision, or dissolution of the legal entity.

In conclusion, the general rule is that corporate entities can be held liable for any offense, including the corruption offenses provided by law.

4.2. Can a company be liable for a bribery offense committed by an entity controlled or owned by it? Are there requirements for the parent to avoid liability in these situations?

As we suggested earlier, criminal liability is personal, therefore, a company cannot be held liable for the crimes committed by another entity under its control unless it participated in the illicit act as a co-author, instigator, or accomplice.

To avoid liability in such situations, the parent company must demonstrate that it was unaware of the illicit activities of the entity it controls or owns and that it did not participate in them. It is essential for the parent company to implement effective compliance and internal control measures to prevent and detect potential acts of corruption.

In other words, to be exonerated from responsibility, the parent company must show that it took all reasonable measures to prevent corruption offenses by its affiliated entities. These measures can include anti-corruption policies and procedures, employee training, internal audits, and continuous monitoring of the activities carried out by the controlled or owned entities.

4.3. Can a company be liable for corrupt actions of a third-party agent engaged to help it obtain or retain business or business advantage (such as government or regulatory actions or approvals)? If so, are there measures recognized in law, enforcement, or regulatory guidance to mitigate this liability?

If the management was aware in any form of the agent’s or employee’s involvement in committing acts of corruption, which were carried out in or for the benefit of the legal entity, there is a possibility that the entity could be accused of the same acts of corruption as its agent or employee.

In these situations, the company’s liability can be engaged if it is proven that the company’s management knew that the agent was going to commit the offense and either accepted this fact or actively pursued it. In this case, depending on the circumstances, the company’s liability can be engaged under all forms of criminal participation.

Regarding the limitation of the legal entity’s liability, Romanian criminal law does not distinguish between individuals and legal persons, so the company can benefit from the same causes for limiting or exonerating criminal liability, such as reporting the offense before the criminal investigation bodies are notified or mitigating circumstances of the offense.

4.4. What are the sanctions for the corporate criminal entity?

A corporate criminal entity can be sanctioned with any of the criminalities applicable to a legal entity, as detailed in Subsection 4.1.

A legal entity that has been sentenced to a fine (established according to Article 137 of the Criminal Code) is forced to pay the fine in full within three months from the finalization of the conviction and if it is unable to pay, the payment can be staggered.

The individualization of the fine criminality in the form of fine days considers the turnover of the legal entity as well as other obligations.

Regarding complementary sanctions, which can also be applied cumulatively, these are imposed when it is determined that, given the nature and severity of the offense, as well as the circumstances of the case, they are necessary.

5. Criminal Proceedings for Bribery and Corruption Cases

5.1. What authorities can prosecute corruption crimes?

In Romania, the entity that can pursue and investigate corruption offenses is the National Anticorruption Directorate (DNA), which is the main authority in Romania responsible for the criminal prosecution of corruption offenses and those assimilated to them.

Successive legislative changes caused by the high number of reported cases have aimed to focus this specialized structure only on combating high- and medium-level corruption.

It operates as a specialized structure within the Prosecutor’s Office attached to the High Court of Cassation and Justice, with operational and administrative autonomy.

Additionally, the prosecutor’s offices attached to tribunals, courts of appeal, or the Prosecutor’s Office attached to the High Court of Cassation and Justice, depending on the case, can handle criminal prosecution in cases that are not within the competence of the DNA.

While the DNA handles cases that fall within its legal competence, prosecutor’s offices with general competence in investigating offenses handle cases involving what is known as petty corruption, which refers to that sector of corruption that does not affect the interests of the majority of a state’s individuals.

This category may include corruption involving a medical professional, a public official, etc., who, through their decisions, favor an individual or a group of individuals to the detriment of others, but this kind of injustice is limited in time and space.

Lastly, the General Anticorruption Directorate (DGA) is a structure within the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Romania, that specializes in combating and preventing corruption within the ministry. The DGA was established with the aim of focusing strictly on preventing and combating corruption within the Ministry of Administration and Internal Affairs.

5.2. Is there a legal obligation to report bribery and corruption cases? If so, to whom does it apply and what are the sanctions for failing to meet such an obligation?

In Romania, there is a legal obligation to report corruption offenses, which applies to a relatively narrow spectrum of individuals, namely public officials or employees of public or private institutions who can be considered assimilated public officials.

The Criminal Code defines as a crime the act of a public official who, upon becoming aware of the commission of an act provided for by criminal law in connection with the service in which they perform their duties, fails to immediately report it to the criminal investigation authorities.

Additionally, the provisions of Article 23 of Law No. 78/2000 require persons with control duties to inform the criminal investigation body or, as the case may be, the body empowered by law to ascertain the commission of offenses, of any data indicating that an operation or illicit act has been carried out that may attract criminal liability according to the aforementioned law.

5.3. Is there any civil or administrative enforcement against corruption crimes?

In Romania, there are civil and administrative measures that complement the main sanctions but are taken within the criminal process, not designed as separate sanctions from the criminal process.

However, the nature of these secondary sanctions is administrative or civil, such as the confiscation of goods, fines, demotion, suspension or removal from office, exclusion from participation in public tenders, and so on.

5.4. What powers do the authorities have generally to gather information when investigating corruption crimes?

The criminal investigation authorities have a series of methods, provided by law, to fulfill the purpose of the criminal investigation and, implicitly, to hold accountable those who have committed corruption offenses.

Generally, during the criminal investigation, the authorized bodies can use special surveillance or investigative methods such as intercepting communications or any type of remote communication, accessing an information system, video surveillance, audio recording, or photographing, locating or tracking by technical means, obtaining data on a person’s financial transactions, seizing, delivering, or searching postal items, using undercover investigators and collaborators, authorized participation in certain activities, supervised delivery, obtaining traffic and location data processed by public electronic communications network providers or publicly available electronic communications service providers.

Additionally, the criminal investigation authorities can cooperate with other law enforcement authorities from other countries through international mutual legal assistance treaties for the exchange of information and evidence.

5.5. Is there any form of leniency law in your jurisdiction, allowing a party to a bribery or corruption crime to voluntarily confess to the crime in exchange for a release from liability or reduction of the criminality?

The Criminal Code provides in the very texts of the law for the crimes of giving a bribe (Article 290) and buying influence (Article 292) that the briber/offender is not punished if they report the act before the criminal investigation body has been notified about it.

Additionally, there is the possibility of reducing the sentencing guidelines by one-third if, under certain conditions, the accused person acknowledges the commission of the acts or if legal or judicial mitigating circumstances are found, according to the law.

5.6. Can a person plea bargain in corruption cases? If so, how is such a process conducted?

Romanian criminal law regulates the guilty plea as a form of judicial negotiation between the prosecutor and the defendant when the accused person admits the facts and the legal classification and agrees with the prosecutor on a method of individualizing the criminality.

The guilty plea can be concluded for corruption crimes, with the criminality limits being below the maximum threshold for which this agreement can be concluded, namely 15 years.

Under these conditions, the accused person benefits from a one-third reduction in the criminality limits for imprisonment or a one-quarter reduction in the case of a fine, this benefit is the maximum the accused can obtain under this agreement.

Additionally, the accused person can admit to the acts of corruption during the trial stage in the first procedural cycle. This procedure is based on the evidence given during the criminal investigation, which was previously considered by the judge to have been legally and fairly administered and is not contested by the accused person.

This procedure follows the continental law models for regulating the trial in the hypothesis of admitting the accusation, where the abbreviation concerns the stage of judicial inquiry, which will be limited only to the administration of documentary evidence.

To benefit from this, the defendant must not be accused of committing a crime punishable by life imprisonment, must request the procedure personally or through an authentic document, and must personally, explicitly, and unequivocally declare before the start of the judicial inquiry that they admit the facts described in the indictment or in the preliminary chamber judge’s order.

As in the case of the agreement concluded with the prosecutor, the substantial legal effect in the case of trial according to the abbreviated procedure is a one-third reduction in the criminality limits provided by law, both for the special minimum and the special maximum.