Romania

Depending on the subjects in dispute, there are four main categories of civil causes of action available:

• Contractual dispute. If the fraud derives from a contractual dispute, the injured party (company or individual) can request compensation for damages before competent courts of law, in accordance with Article 1516 et seq., Civil Code. Article 1531, Civil Code provides the injured party with the right to claim full compensation for damages sustained, including the effective loss, loss of profits, expenses, and interest (including non-patrimonial damages).
• Tort. If the fraud derives from tort (non-contractual liability), the injured party (company or individual) can request compensation for damages before competent courts of law in accordance with Article 1349 et seq., Civil code. The injured party must argue that the prejudice in dispute is the result of fraud. The injured party can request full compensation for damages sustained, including the effective loss, loss of profits, expenses, and interest, according to Article 1385 et seq., Civil Code. Non-patrimonial damages may be recovered in certain conditions.
• Employee activity under a labour contract. If the fraud derives from a labour contract and results from the employee’s activity, the company can request compensation for damages before competent courts of law, according to Article 254, Labour Code. The grounds for the claim will follow the specific provisions of the Labour Code, as well as the general provisions applicable for the damages resulting from the contractual dispute (see above, Article 1516 et seq., Civil Code). The claim will be lodged before a tribunal, irrespective of the amounts in dispute.
• Taxpayer. If the fraud derives from a taxpayer (company or individual), the tax authority will request full compensation for the damages (main debt, interests and penalties) directly through the enforcement procedure (the court involvement is not needed). If the taxpayer considers that the alleged damage is not real, they must follow the administrative procedure for the annulment of the tax decision, followed by a court trial. If the enforcement procedure has started, the taxpayer can challenge the enforcement procedure before competent courts of law.

Irrespective of the civil cause of the fraud, the injured party can file a criminal complaint, if the deed represents a criminal fraud.

Under Romanian legal provisions, the fraud is covered by different provisions, including:

• Civil Code, regarding the general legal provisions for the full compensation of the damages resulting from the fraud, irrespective of the cause of the dispute (contractual or non-contractual liability). Even specific legal provisions regarding particular fraud regimes will be supplemented by the general provisions of the Civil Code in respect of the compensation.
• Tax Code and Tax Procedure Code, regarding the frauds committed by the taxpayers.
• Law No. 129/2019, regarding anti-money laundering.
• Law No. 241/2005 combating tax evasion, regarding criminal offences resulting from a tax fraud.
• Labour Code, regarding the frauds committed by the employees.
• Insolvency Law (Law No. 85/2014), regarding the fraud committed by the director/administrator or other parties.
• Criminal Code, regarding criminal offences resulting from a fraud.

A national court of law will be competent to judge a dispute regarding international fraud claims if the doer/debtor is located in Romania (home/residency or headquarter) or if the deed was committed within the national territory, according to Civil Procedure Code and Bruxelles I Regulation.

Depending on the cause of the claim, several factors become relevant:

• For civil disputes regarding fraud, the domicile/headquarter of the defendant is relevant for the competent court of law. Nevertheless, if the fraud is related to a real-estate matter, the place of the asset may become relevant in setting the competent court of law.
• For tax disputes, the registration of the taxpayer in Romania and the domicile/headquarter of the taxpayer is relevant for the competent court of law
• For criminal disputes, the place of wrongdoing and the domicile/headquarter of the defendant is relevant.

In civil cases, if the case involves EU Member States, the Romanian court of law invested with a claim regarding a fraud that can trigger multiple jurisdictions to be involved, will solve the conflicts of law by applying the provisions of Rome I Regulation (EU Regulation No. 593/2008), if the fraud derives from a contractual dispute, and Rome II Regulation (EU Regulation No. 864/2007), if the fraud derives from a non-contractual dispute.

If the case involves non-EU subjects, the Romanian court of law invested with a claim regarding a fraud that can trigger multiple jurisdictions to be involved, will solve the conflicts of law by applying the provisions of Civil Procedure Code and Law No. 105/1992, as well as any bilateral treaties, if applicable.

Under Romanian jurisdiction, any original assets can be traced, such as cash, bank accounts, securities, real property, and digital assets. In addition, any substituted assets could be traced if their purchase is the result of fraud, such as cars, real property, new investments, and indirect assets (such as transfers through intermediaries, conversion into different asset classes, or movement across jurisdictions). The claimant must provide proofs that the assets are the result of fraud and demonstrate how the link between the intermediaries was made.

Tracing through mixed funds will be possible if the claimant has proof of the links made through the funds, which can be further analysed through a judicial accounting expertise during the trial.

In case of fraud by a taxpayer, the tax authorities have multiple methods to identify the operations made through bank accounts by the taxpayer and to track the funds.

Under Romanian legislation there are no specific provisions regarding proprietary claims for fraud cases. Nevertheless, depending on the particularities of the dispute, specific legal provisions can be applicable for:

• Ownership claims. If the claimant can show they remain the legal owner of an asset, they may recover it directly from the possessor (estate claim or possessory action), according to Articles 563–565 and 949–950, Civil Code.
• Unjust enrichment. In cases where ownership cannot be strictly proven, courts may order restitution of value obtained without legal basis, according to Article 1345, Civil Code.
• Nullity of transactions. Fraudulent transfers can be annulled, restoring the asset to the claimant’s patrimony.
• Insolvency protections. In insolvency proceedings, claimants asserting a proprietary right may be treated differently from ordinary creditors, according to Law No. 85/2014.

If the original asset is substituted, the claimant can trace the new asset to recover the damages arising from the fraud, under the restitutio in integrum principle. Depending on the particularities of the case, the claim can be made under specific provisions applicable to the ownership claims, unjust enrichment, or nullity of transactions. The court will analyse the written proofs and may order a judicial accounting expert to determine the substituted assets, if the particularities of the case require such an expert report.

Under Romanian legal provisions, the courts of law provide several provisional remedies designed to preserve assets pending the resolution of a fraud or asset recovery claim, such as:

• Seizure of assets, under which the movable and immovable assets (bank accounts, real estate, shares, and other property) of the defendant are frozen, preventing their sale or disposal, thereby securing the claimant’s potential recovery, according to Article 952, Civil Procedure Code.
• Garnishment of bank accounts, under which plaintiff funds held by third parties are frozen, blocking withdrawals and transfers, according to Articles 969–970, Civil Procedure Code.
• Judicial seizure over immovable property, under which the seizure is ordered and registered in the land registry to prevent transfer to third parties, according to Article 972, Civil Procedure Code.
• Injunctive relief, under which the court can rule urgent and temporary measures to prohibit certain acts of the defendant to preserve a factual or legal situation, where immediate action is required and delay would cause irreparable harm, according to Article 997, Civil Procedure Code.

There are no specific legal provisions in respect of disclosure tools under Romanian jurisdiction. Nevertheless, the claimant can request before the trial, or within the trial, the evidence held by the counterparty or by third parties:

• During the trial, the Romanian court of law can order the defendant or third parties (e.g. authorities, banks, trade registry, or land registry) to produce specific documents, or an examination of witnesses can be ordered for additional evidence in the case.
• Before the trial, or before the hearing held on the evidence topic in an ongoing trial, the Romanian court of law can allow the preservation of evidence in urgent cases, especially where there is a risk that evidence may be lost or destroyed, according to Article 359 et seq., Civil Procedure Code.

There are no specific legal provisions in respect of disclosure of evidence before a trial. Nevertheless, the claimant can use the preservation of evidence procedure stated above or can request the information available to third party sources. Third parties are not obliged to disclose the information without a pending trial and/or without an order from the judge in this respect.

Romanian courts of law can assist foreign EU proceedings involving fraud and asset recovery with:

• the enforcement of an EU order, under the provisions of Bruxelles I Regulation (EU Regulation No. 1215/2012), under which rulings issued by courts from EU Member States are automatically recognised in Romania and can be enforced without the exequatur procedure; and
• the evidence needed in foreign proceedings, under the provisions of EU Regulation No. 1783/2020), under which EU Member States’ courts of law cooperate/assist with taking the evidence requested by a foreign court (e.g. hearing witnesses or obtaining documents).

Protective measures can be ordered by the Romanian court of law in urgent cases even if the Romanian court of law has no jurisdiction, irrespective of whether the main claim is located in EU Member States or not, according to Article 1075, Civil Procedure Code.

For the non-EU proceedings, Romanian courts of law may assist foreign proceedings if bilateral treaties apply.

Usually, cooperation is most efficient when it takes place under EU instruments, which provide standardised and streamlined procedures, as stated above. Cooperation within non-EU jurisdictions depends on bilateral treaties or general international law principles and may be less uniform and slower. Nevertheless, given the Romanian courts of law workload, formalities and the particularities of each case (e.g. complexity, volume, and the clarity of the request), the effectiveness and timeline of the cooperation may be affected.

For EU Member States, the following regulations, as mentioned above, will apply: Bruxelles I Regulation, Roma I and Roma II Regulations, EU Regulation on Taking Evidence, and EU Regulation No. 655/2014 (which allows freezing of bank accounts in other EU Member States).

For non-EU cases, Romania has multiple bilateral treaties with various countries for the recognition and enforcement of rulings and cooperation in civil and commercial disputes.

The enforcement of an EU order is recognised under the provisions of Bruxelles I Regulation (EU Regulation No. 1215/2012), under which rulings given by courts from EU Member States are automatically recognised in Romania and can be enforced without the exequatur procedure.

For non-EU orders, a Romanian court of law must grant an enforcement order before the non-EU order can be enforced, according to the Civil Procedure Code and Law No. 105/1992, if the following conditions are met:

• the foreign court had proper jurisdiction;
• the defendant was properly notified;
• the judgment is final and enforceable in the original country; and
• the judgment does not conflict with Romanian public policy.

For civil and commercial disputes involving EU Member States, EU Regulation No. 655/2014 will apply, under which the foreign court or creditor submits a preservation request with supporting documents, the Romanian court reviews urgency, connection to assets, and risk of dissipation and the court issues an enforcement order to the local bank or authority.

For civil and commercial disputes involving non-EU Member States, the Civil Procedure Code and Law No. 105/1992 will apply, under which the foreign authority submits the freezing or confiscation order for recognition. The Romanian court examines:

• jurisdiction of the foreign court;
• proper notice to the debtor;
• finality of the order; and
• compatibility with Romanian public policy.

If recognised, the court issues a domestic enforcement order, allowing local authorities to seize or freeze the relevant assets.

Insolvency law interacts closely with fraud and asset recovery claims, as insolvency proceedings can affect both the ability to recover assets and the remedies available to victims of fraud.

If insolvency proceedings are opened, fraudulent transactions prior to insolvency can be challenged by the insolvency practitioner to recover assets for the benefit of creditors.

Law No. 85/2014 allows the court or practitioner to reverse certain pre-insolvency transactions that were intended to defraud creditors:

• Fraudulent conveyances. Transfers made with the intention to prejudice creditors can be annulled.
• Preferential payments. Payments to certain creditors that unfairly disadvantage others may be clawed back.
• Look-back periods. The Law defines periods before insolvency filing during which transactions can be challenged (a maximum of three years, for specific types of transactions).

This effectively supports asset recovery for victims of fraud by bringing misappropriated assets back into the insolvent estate.

Creditors with valid claims based on fraud must assert them in the insolvency proceedings, within a limited period of time. The creditors who can prove a proprietary right (e.g. ownership or right to restitution), may be treated differently from general unsecured creditors (e.g. banks).

The insolvency practitioner can challenge fraudulent or voidable transactions, pursue asset recovery from third parties or lodge claims against former directors or managers for mismanagement or fraud to trigger their personal liability.

Assets dissipated through fraud can often be clawed back in Romanian insolvency proceedings, subject to certain conditions and time limits. This is one of the key mechanisms that insolvency law provides to protect creditors and maximize recoveries.

The insolvency practitioner can challenge transactions made before the opening of insolvency proceedings if they were intended to defraud creditors or give unfair preference. Furthermore, the practitioner can clawback misappropriated or substituted assets, as well as hold directors, managers or other wrongdoers personally liable to recover the losses caused by fraudulent transactions.

Under Romanian law, criminal proceedings and civil recovery claims can run in parallel, subject to specific procedural rules governing their interaction.

Civil claim within criminal proceedings

The injured party (victim) may lodge a civil claim for damages directly within the criminal file (actio civilis in rem penalis), pursuant to Articles 19–21 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CPC). This is the most common approach in practice, as it avoids parallel litigation and ensures that compensation is addressed in the same proceedings.

The civil claim is judged by the criminal court alongside the criminal charges.

The civil court proceedings are automatically stayed once a criminal investigation is opened in respect of the same facts (Article 27, CPC). The stay is lifted only when the criminal file is definitively closed, or a final judgment is delivered.

If the victim opts for a separate civil action instead, they cannot subsequently bring the same civil claim within the criminal proceedings (electa una via principle, Article 27 paragraph 3, CPC).

Criminal confiscation and civil compensation orders may coexist, but the amounts awarded under each mechanism must not result in double recovery for the same loss.

Civil claim before civil courts

Where the victim initiates civil proceedings independently, those proceedings are stayed until the criminal case is concluded (Article 27, CPC). Once the criminal judgment becomes final, the civil court is bound by the findings on the existence of the offence and the identity of the perpetrator (Article 28, CPC) but retains full discretion on the quantum of damages.

Romanian law does not provide a standalone civil or non-conviction-based (NCB) confiscation regime equivalent to those found in common law jurisdictions. All confiscation and extended confiscation tools are criminal in nature and require a conviction as a precondition.

Criminal confiscation framework

• Special confiscation (confiscare specială), Article 112, Criminal Code: applies to assets directly derived from or used in the commission of an offence (e.g. instruments, proceeds, or property destined for use in an offence).
• Extended confiscation (confiscare extinsă), Article 112, Criminal Code: available for a defined list of serious offences (including fraud, money laundering, and tax evasion). The court may order confiscation of all assets of the convicted person whose value exceeds lawfully obtained income, without requiring the prosecution to trace each specific asset to the crime. This is the closest Romanian equivalent to an NCB regime, although it still presupposes a conviction.
• Provisional seizure (sechestru asigurator penal), Articles 249–252, CPC: assets may be seized during the criminal investigation to secure both future confiscation and civil compensation. No conviction is required at this stage; reasonable suspicion is sufficient.
• Special confiscation may be ordered even in the absence of a conviction where the suspect has died, become incapacitated, or the proceedings were discontinued on non-merits grounds, pursuant to Article 549, CPC (in rem procedure). This is the only scenario in which an asset can be formally confiscated without a personal conviction.

Romania has not yet enacted a fully autonomous civil asset recovery statute. Legislative alignment with Directive (EU) 2024/1260 on asset recovery and confiscation is ongoing and is expected to introduce additional tools in due course.

Victims have a formal procedural role in criminal proceedings and can benefit from confiscation outcomes, subject to specific conditions.

Procedural standing

• The victim may constitute themselves as a civil party (parte civilă) within the criminal proceeding (Article 19, CPC), thus obtaining full procedural rights to submit evidence, participate in hearings, and appeal adverse rulings.
• As a civil party, the victim receives a formal notification of key procedural steps, including the commencement and conclusion of the criminal investigation.
• The victim may also intervene in confiscation hearings to assert that specific assets represent proceeds of the offence committed against them.

Priority of compensation over confiscation

• Under Article 256, CPC, when seized assets are subject to both criminal confiscation and a civil compensation order, the satisfaction of the victim’s civil claim takes priority over the state’s confiscation interest.
• In practice, if the value of seized assets is insufficient to cover both compensation and confiscation, the court will prioritise the victim’s recovery.

The distribution of recovered assets to fraud victims follows distinct tracks depending on the procedural route through which recovery is achieved.

Recovery through criminal civil claim

• Where the criminal court upholds the civil claim lodged by the victim (parte civilă), it issues a compensation order within the criminal judgment.
• Enforcement of the compensation order follows the standard civil enforcement procedure (Article 622 et seq., Civil Procedure Code), conducted by a bailiff (executor judecătoresc).
• Usually, the victim must initiate enforcement proceedings separately; the criminal court does not distribute assets directly.
• Seized assets that have been provisionally frozen during the criminal investigation may be directly allocated to satisfy the compensation order upon the judgment becoming final (Article 256, CPC).

Recovery through civil proceedings

• Where recovery is pursued through a separate civil action (outside the criminal file), the civil court issues a judgment ordering restitution or damages. Enforcement follows the standard civil enforcement procedure.
• Assets frozen under provisional criminal seizure may be transferred to secure the civil judgment upon request, subject to judicial authorisation.
• In insolvency proceedings triggered by fraud, the distribution of recovered assets follows the creditor ranking under Law No. 85/2014 (i.e. secured creditors, insolvency costs, preferential creditors, unsecured creditors). Fraud victims rank as unsecured creditors unless they hold a proprietary claim.

Under Romanian legal provisions, the limitation period depends on the type of claim (civil or criminal) and the legal cause of the action. For civil causes (contractual or non-contractual disputes), the general three-year limitation period becomes applicable.

In criminal matters, limitation periods are governed by the Criminal Code and vary depending on the seriousness of the offence (typically between 5 and 10 years for fraud-related offences, but potentially longer for aggravated forms). The criminal limitation period is relevant not only for prosecution, but also indirectly impacts civil recovery where claims are pursued within criminal proceedings.

Under the Civil Code, the limitation period for non-contractual obligations (including fraud) starts from the moment the claimant becomes aware of both the harm and the identity of the person liable. This effectively suspends the limitation period until the fraud is discovered.

In both contractual and non-contractual disputes, limitation can be interrupted by judicial acts, such as filing a claim or formally notifying the wrongdoer. If the debtor has engaged in concealment or deceit, courts may recognise this as a justification for extending the limitation period.

From a criminal law perspective, an important practical effect arises where criminal proceedings are initiated in relation to the same facts. In such cases, the civil action pursued within the criminal proceedings benefits from the procedural framework of the criminal case, and the running of the civil limitation period is, in practice, neutralised for as long as the criminal proceedings are ongoing. This reflects the principle that the civil claim attached to the criminal case follows the fate and timeline of the criminal proceedings.

As a result, initiating criminal proceedings is often used strategically to preserve civil claims which might otherwise become time barred.

Defences are typically fact-specific, but several recurring lines of defence can be identified. Defendants will usually deny the existence of fraud altogether, challenging either the factual basis of the claim or the causal link between the alleged conduct and the damage. Lack of intent or absence of unlawful conduct is frequently invoked, particularly in borderline commercial situations.

In tracing scenarios, third parties commonly rely on the good-faith purchaser defence, arguing acquisition for value without knowledge of the fraud. Defendants may also invoke contributory fault on the part of the claimant, which can lead to a reduction of recoverable damages.

From a procedural standpoint, limitation is a standard defence, especially in complex fraud cases involving long factual timelines. In insolvency contexts, defendants may argue that transactions were carried out in the ordinary course of business, without intent to prejudice creditors, or that they fall outside the statutory look-back periods.

The remedies aim to restore the claimant’s rights, recover misappropriated assets (restitution of assets), and prevent unjust enrichment (damages), reversal of fraudulent acts, meaning restitution in integrum.

Under Romanian legal provisions, “constructive trusts” or “equitable liens” are not formally recognised. Nevertheless, some similar effects may be achieved through proprietary claims, restitution and unjust enrichment or interim measures to secure assets.

The asset realisation and distribution follow structured rules depending on the type of proceeding — civil, insolvency or criminal. The goal is to maximise recovery for victims or creditors while respecting legal priorities.

The assets may be returned in kind (if possible) or through monetary compensation directly to the claimant or proportionally to each claimant, if many.

Under insolvency procedure, the distribution of assets depends on the ranking of the creditors as follows: secured creditors, costs of insolvency proceedings, preferential creditors, unsecured creditors.

Claimants can usually claim legal or contractual interest, as well as inflation-adjusted losses. The Civil Procedure Code provides the right to recover the expenses of the trial, as well as the enforcement procedure (e.g. stamp duty, attorney fees, expert fees, bailiff fees, and other expenses of the trial).

Romanian jurisdiction can be appreciated as being claimant-friendly given its EU framework, effective interim measures and recognition of foreign decisions. Moreover, legal costs associated with claims (such as stamp duty) can be considered as accessible, even if the costs depend on the amount in dispute.

Nevertheless, Romania does not have a legal background of disclosure or discovery provisions, constructive trust or equitable lien, resulting in it being less flexible under civil procedure law, which makes the trial quite formalistic. Court workloads have led to longer trials in civil, administrative and commercial disputes (approx. three months between the hearings and up to 3–5 years to obtain a final ruling on the merits). Moreover, courts are unpredictable and unreliable in Romania, as judicial precedent is not binding on judges, except under very limited exceptions).

Interim measures and the presidential ordinance procedure can sometimes be ordered within a few days, or it may take up to some weeks, depending on whether the hearing of the parties is necessary. In urgent cases, applications can be decided without hearing the defendant.

Nevertheless, the timeframe may be impacted by the court’s workload, the clarity and complexity of the claim and the evidence needed to be administered for the ruling.

Litigation funding is not highly developed in Romania, so the most common option is self-funding, making payment arrangements with the attorney involved or even the assignment of the debt to a debt recovery entity.

Law No. 414/2023 on specific protective measures for collective consumers, adopted in accordance with EU Directive No. 1828/2020, is the only piece of legislation mentioning the possibility of third-party litigation funding, without providing any litigious right for the third-party funder.

Usually, the associated costs of a trial consist of:

• stamp duty, which is calculated as a percentage of the claim value subject to statutory caps or thresholds;
• attorney fees;
• judicial expert fees; and
• enforcement fees (such as bailiff fee, additional stamp duty and attorney fee for the enforcement procedure).

Legal aid is available primarily for individuals with limited financial means, which is not typically relevant for large commercial fraud claims.

Trials before Romanian courts of law are formalistic and detail-sensitive, the success of a trial depending also on the claimant’s ability to understand and comply with the procedure.

The Civil Procedure Code provides strict formal requirements for claims and failure to comply with the requirements can lead to the annulment or dismissal of the claim. In addition, many legal procedural terms apply during a trial, and failure to comply within the legal deadline can lead to dismissal of the request.

Given that there is no broad discovery mechanism, the parties have to rely on targeted document requests and public records and cannot depend solely on the court’s requests.

Romanian procedure is largely written and evidence-driven from the outset, the parties being obliged to present their evidence in the early stage of a trial (usually before the first hearing), legal procedural deadlines being set within the Civil Procedure Code in this respect.

Claims for protective measures require strong justification and evidence.

In many cases, even if a favourable decision is ruled, if during the enforcement procedure no liquidities and/or enforceable assets are found, the claimant will struggle to obtain effective reparation.

In addition, the opening of the insolvency procedure will paralyse any ongoing litigation against the insolvent debtor, and the creditors will be forced to pursue their claim within a limited timeframe of the insolvency procedure and with limited options.

Romania continues its development in aligning with the EU regime and cooperation, aiming for enhanced financial transparency and establishing effective recovery tools. For example, during 2025 two different laws were adopted (Law No. 3/2025 and Law No. 239/2025) regarding financial monitoring and prevention of insolvency, as well as insolvency recovery tools.

There are no specific developments within the applicable jurisprudence and doctrine. Generally, the courts’ approach is pragmatic, based solely on the evidence of the trial and the applicable legal provisions.

Given EU integration, technological change, and evolving judicial practice, the Romanian system is becoming more coordinated and effective, such effectiveness being visible mostly in cases involving taxpayers, where the tax authorities prioritise the verification of taxpayers’ compliance with legal obligations, discovery of fraud and recovery of damages.