Romania

As in other civil law jurisdictions, the Romanian white-collar crime regime is regulated by specific enactments, with the RCC as the primary, generally applicable instrument, covering a wide range of white-collar offences, such as fraud, corruption-related offences and abuse in office.

At the same time, specialised legislation complements the RCC. For example, the Anti-Corruption Law No. 78/2000 (“ACL 78/2000”) on preventing, discovering and sanctioning corruption acts, remains the primary anti-corruption statute, covering a broad range of corruption-related offences, including in cases involving irregularities in relation to EU funds. Similarly, Romania also has in place specialised laws and specific offences combating money laundering and tax evasion. Furthermore, the Romanian Companies Law No. 31/1990 also contains criminal provisions for corporate misconduct, including, for example, instances related to false statements or misuse of company assets. There are also provisions around combating unfair competition and competition market-related offences.

Romania also implemented the confiscation of proceeds of crime, including extended confiscation provisions applicable to corruption and organised crime convictions.

As a now well-established market economy in the CEE and SEE region and in the European Union, Romania is party to several principal international conventions relevant to white-collar crime, including:

• the United Nations Convention Against Corruption (UNCAC);
• the OECD Convention on Combating Bribery of Foreign Public Officials in International Business Transactions;
• the Council of Europe Criminal Law Convention on Corruption;
• the Council of Europe Civil Law Convention on Corruption;
• the United Nations Convention Against Transnational Organized Crime and its Protocols (Palermo Convention);
• the Council of Europe Convention on Laundering, Search, Seizure and Confiscation of the Proceeds from Crime and on the Financing of Terrorism (Warsaw Convention); and
• the Council of Europe Convention on Cybercrime (Budapest Convention).

As an EU Member State, Romania is also subject to directly applicable EU regulations and is obliged to transpose EU directives into national law. These include successive Anti-Money Laundering Directives, as well as the EU’s Whistleblower Protection Directive (2019/1937). Romania participates in the European Public Prosecutor's Office (EPPO), which has jurisdiction over offences affecting the EU's financial interests, including fraud and — specifically for cross-border VAT fraud — where the total damage is at least EUR 10 million, together with related money laundering and corruption.

Romania is also party to numerous bilateral and multilateral mutual legal assistance and extradition treaties that facilitate cross-border cooperation in white-collar matters.

Romanian criminal law applies to both individuals and legal entities, such as companies. Individuals (either Romanian nationals or foreign nationals) may face personal criminal liability for white-collar offences.

As mentioned above, Romania was among the first countries to have enacted corporate criminal liability more than 20 years ago, and our team has observed a steady evolution and enforcement concerning companies and their representatives, including directors, executives, employees or third parties, as the case may be. Very briefly, legal entities — including companies, associations and foundations — may be held criminally liable for offences committed on their behalf or in their interest. Criminal liability of a legal entity does not exclude the personal liability of the individual(s) involved in the committal of the respective offences.

Criminal law sanctions for legal entities range from criminal fines to dissolution; suspension of activities (or one of the activities) for three months to three years; prohibition from participating in public procurement procedures for one to three years; placement under judicial supervision; or publication of the conviction. In addition to criminal law sanctions, civil related liability may also apply. Apart from criminal, civil and other possible legal liability, reputational damage and commercial issues may also have an effect.

For corruption offences specifically, among others, the ACL 78/2000 extends liability to a broad range of individuals including: public officials (funcționari publici), persons exercising a public dignity, persons managing state-owned entities or private-sector employees and managers where certain offences are committed in the course of business activities.

As a general principle, Romanian criminal law applies to offences committed on Romanian territory or to related consequences on Romanian territory (the territoriality principle), including aboard Romanian-flagged vessels and aircraft.

Very briefly, as in other EU jurisdictions, Romanian criminal law also applies extraterritorially in the following circumstances:

• offences committed abroad by Romanian nationals (individuals or companies) or stateless persons domiciled in Romania (active personality principle);
• offences committed abroad against Romanian nationals (passive personality principle), subject to dual criminality; and
• offences to which Romania is obliged to assert jurisdiction under international conventions (universality principle), which includes corruption and money laundering offences.

Foreign nationals who commit white-collar offences on Romanian territory, or offences abroad that fall within Romania’s extended jurisdiction, may be prosecuted. In practice, the DNA regularly investigates offences with cross-border elements, including fraud involving EU funds, where Romanian jurisdiction attaches based on the location of the funds or the domestic effects of the fraudulent conduct. The EPPO has jurisdiction over offences affecting the EU’s financial interests with a Romanian nexus, operating through Romanian delegated prosecutors.

Companies (foreign or domestic subsidiaries or branches of foreign companies) can also be investigated and subject to corporate criminal liability risks and sanctions, as the case may be.

Romanian law does not define “white-collar crime” per se as a distinct, specific offence; rather it represents a wider category of business or economic related criminal offences. As in other jurisdictions, in practice, the following are among the principal offences encountered in corporate and financial crime matters.

Examples of key corruption-related offences

Bribery of public officials (dare de mită). Briefly, the law sanctions offering, promising or giving a benefit to a public official to induce or reward the performance or non-performance of official duties. This offence is punishable by imprisonment and other related ancillary sanctions. Bribery in the private sector is also punishable and our team has seen increased enforcement in the private sector too. Giving a bribe does not constitute an offence if the person was coerced. Also, as a form of immunity, if the bribe-giver denounces the conduct before the authorities become aware of it, they are exempt from criminal liability and the bribe is returned.

Taking a bribe (luare de mită). The law sanctions a public official requesting or accepting a benefit for themselves or another in connection with their official duties. Punishable by imprisonment and other related sanctions, including a ban on holding public office.

Trading in influence (trafic de influență). The law sanctions requesting or accepting benefits in exchange for exercising real or alleged influence over a public official. Punishable by imprisonment and other ancillary sanctions.

The ACL 78/2000 also extends these offences to a pretty wider range of individuals in, for example, persons holding a public dignity, managers of state-owned entities and public service concessionaires.

Abuse of office and related offences

Abuse of office (abuz în serviciu). The law sanctions a public official who, in the exercise of their duties, unlawfully fails to act or acts in a way that causes harm to the rights or legitimate interests of a person or causes material damage to a public authority. Punishable by imprisonment and other related sanctions. This offence has been subject to significant Constitutional Court scrutiny, with some of the decisions restricting its scope to violations of primary level legal norms.

The ACL 78/2000 also extends these offences to, for example, persons holding a public dignity, managers of state-owned entities and public service concessionaires.

Fraud-related offences

The fraud offence (înșelăciune). The law sanctions deceiving a person in order to obtain an unjust benefit.

Fraud against the EU budget funds. As addressed under the ACL 78/2000, this offence attracts higher penalties.

Tax evasion. Briefly among its various forms of sanctioning, the law sanctions concealment of taxable activity, falsification of records, or use of false documents to evade fiscal obligations.

Money laundering

Briefly among its various forms, the law sanctions concealing, converting or transferring proceeds of crime, as well as assisting the perpetrator of a predicate offence to evade the consequences of their acts. Self-laundering (laundering one’s own proceeds) is also criminalised.

Other related offences

Further related offences regularly encountered in white-collar cases include, among others:

• forgery (fals material în înscrisuri oficiale);
• embezzlement (delapidare);
• market manipulation and insider trading; or
• breaches of public procurement rules.

All these offences are also punishable by significant imprisonment and ancillary sanctions.

Asset confiscation, including extended confiscation, routinely accompanies convictions in practice.

Similarly with other jurisdictions, Romania does not have a distinct statutory category of “foreign” white-collar crime offences. However, several provisions operate with express extraterritorial reach or are specifically designed to address cross-border conduct.

For example, when it comes to bribery of foreign public officials, specific provisions criminalise bribery of foreign public officials or officials of international organisations, in line with Romania’s obligations under the OECD Anti-Bribery Convention. The provision applies to acts committed by Romanian nationals or in Romania.

When it comes to money laundering, specific provisions criminalise money laundering regardless of where the predicate offence was committed, provided that the predicate offence would also constitute a crime under Romanian law. This allows for the prosecution in Romania of laundering proceeds from offences committed abroad.

When it comes to frauds involving EU funds, local provisions implemented Directive (EU) 2017/1371 (“the PIF Directive”) and cover, among other points, fraudulent conduct affecting the EU budget, regardless of where acts are performed, provided there is a Romanian nexus. The EPPO has parallel jurisdiction for offences meeting the PIF Directive threshold and also operates through Romanian delegated prosecutors.

Trade sanctions and export control violations under EU regulations are directly applicable in Romania and may give rise to criminal liability in certain instances.

Romania has a multi-layered enforcement architecture combining specialised criminal prosecution, general prosecution, regulatory oversight and financial intelligence functions. We are including herein brief observations on the main local investigative bodies. It should also be emphasised that these bodies cooperate with other local authorities and foreign authorities.

The DNA is a specialised prosecution office within the Public Ministry. The DNA has jurisdiction over medium- and large-scale corruption related offences, defined by, inter alia, reference to damage thresholds or the status of the suspect (e.g. senators, deputies, ministers, other officials). The DNA conducts its own criminal investigations using dedicated investigative officers and has broad powers of search, surveillance, interception of communications and asset seizure. DNA prosecutors also coordinate with the EPPO and other foreign authorities.

The DIICOT investigates money laundering, cybercrime, organised crime and trafficking offences that often intersect with white-collar crime. DIICOT has comparable investigative powers to the DNA and operates as a specialised prosecution unit within the Public Ministry.

The General Prosecutor’s Office (attached to the High Court of Cassation and Justice) handles major fraud, tax evasion and other economic crime cases falling outside the DNA’s and DIICOT’s jurisdictions. County-level prosecutor’s offices handle lower-value white-collar crime offences.

The National Office for Prevention and Control of Money Laundering (ONPCSB) is Romania’s Financial Intelligence Unit (FIU). It receives suspicious transaction reports (STRs) from obliged entities, analyses and disseminates financial intelligence to prosecutorial authorities. ONPCSB also has supervisory and sanctioning powers over AML-obliged entities.

The ANI conducts administrative investigations into conflicts of interest, incompatibilities and unexplained wealth of public officials. ANI can refer cases to prosecutors but does not itself exercise criminal powers.

The Financial Supervisory Authority (ASF) supervises capital markets and insurance sectors and can refer market abuse or insider trading cases to criminal authorities.

The Romanian National Bank (BNR) exercises supervisory jurisdiction over financial institutions and can impose administrative sanctions and make criminal referrals too.

The Competition Council also cooperates and may refer matters to prosecutorial authorities.

Apart from domestic inter-authority cooperation, over the last 10–15 years our team has also seen increased international judicial cooperation with authorities in other EU and non-EU Member States, especially in the area of cross-border corruption, organised crime, fraud, cybersecurity, trafficking, anti-terrorism, anti-money laundering, international sanctions or other white collar crime angles.

Romanian criminal procedure does not provide for plea bargaining to the same extent as the deferred prosecution agreements or non-prosecution agreements (DPAs or NPAs) available in other jurisdictions. At this stage Romania only has the guilty plea agreement option, which means admitting criminal liability and related (lighter) criminal law sanctions. At the same time, though, several mechanisms allow for negotiated or expedited outcomes in white-collar matters.

For example, in the simplified procedure (procedura simplificată), a defendant who acknowledges guilt and requests judgment on the basis of the prosecution’s evidence may benefit from a mandatory one-third reduction of the applicable custodial sentence, or a reduction of one-quarter for non-custodial penalties. This mechanism is frequently used in practice and provides courts with a basis for significant sentence mitigation. It applies to both individuals and legal entities.

Self-reporting and cooperation are other practical procedural tools available. Voluntary self-disclosure before criminal proceedings are initiated, combined with active cooperation, depending on the offences and circumstances, can constitute either an exoneration or mitigating circumstance, potentially reducing sentences below the statutory minimum. For example, companies and individuals who cooperate — including by providing evidence, facilitating asset recovery or denouncing co-conspirators — have received more favourable treatment. In exoneration instances, for certain corruption matters, a person who denounces the conduct before authorities become aware of it is entitled to exemption from criminal liability and the return of the bribe.

Romanian law imposes no specific detailed procedure for internal corporate investigations. However, the legal, regulatory and enforcement frameworks significantly influence how investigations must be structured and conducted in order to be effective, take action and remain defensible, in order to preserve key protections and reduce other risks and possible sanctions. We are briefly outlining below some of the main practical points, as seen and developed in practice by our team over the past 25 years.

Governance and mandate

Investigations should be initiated under a clear mandate defining, among others, scope, responsibilities and reporting lines. Where board members or senior management may be implicated, oversight should be entrusted to an independent body and external counsel reporting objectively and independently. Various forms of conflicts of interest at all levels must be avoided.

Legal professional privilege

As in other EU Member States, Romania recognises legal professional privilege (secretul profesional al avocatului) under professional conduct rules governing the legal profession. Communications between a client and their lawyer in the context of providing legal advice or representation are privileged. In practice, to maximise privilege protection, internal investigations should be conducted by or under the direct involvement and supervision of external counsel, with a clear legal advice mandate. Interview notes and internal reports should be prepared as privileged legal advice documents. As in other jurisdictions, prosecutors have also the power to seize documents in searches and may challenge privilege claims, which are then determined by a court. Companies should therefore take early advice on privilege architecture before commencing investigations and before engaging other professionals. Our team has seen cases where the legal privilege structure was not followed at the outset, which impacted negatively on companies and their investigations and required more time and resources to remedy.

Data protection, reporting duties, other requirements and cross-border issues

Data collection must comply with Regulation (EU) 2016/679 (GDPR) and other applicable Romanian provisions, such as employment or specific regulatory requirements, as the case may be. Employees have the right to be informed about the purposes of data processing. Covert monitoring is strictly regulated and may only be lawfully conducted in limited circumstances. Employee interviews should be conducted on a voluntary basis, with disclosure that counsel represents the company. Also, depending on the investigated angles and related findings, Romanian law requires employers to observe specific procedural requirements before imposing disciplinary sanctions, including providing the employee an opportunity to be heard. Reporting duties may become relevant in certain instances, especially in cases with corruption related angles; these may give rise to additional complexities, such as possible conflicting interests and timing issues. Cross-border data and other information sharing angles are even more important in cases with cross-border elements or where authorities in different jurisdictions investigate or exchange information.

Critical issues

The timing of the investigation, assessing its findings, taking appropriate actions, and addressing reporting duties or the manner of any criminal referral or notification of public authorities requires careful consideration. For example, premature disclosure may trigger coercive measures; on the other hand, lack of action or undue delay may create obstruction risks, adversely affect sentencing or may have a more significant impact on the wider group of which the involved companies or individuals are part. Interaction with parallel regulatory or other jurisdictions’ proceedings must also be carefully managed. The involvement of suitable professionals in all jurisdictions and evidence preservation should also be considered, structured and implemented at the outset.

Romania has a dedicated whistleblower protection law (i.e. Law No. 361/2022 on the protection of whistleblowers in the public interest), which transposed EU Directive 2019/1937. This is the primary national governing whistleblower protection in both the public and private sectors.

Scope and coverage

Law No. 361/2022 protects individuals who report a wide range of violations of national or EU law in an occupational context, including criminal offences such as corruption, fraud, money laundering and breaches of public procurement rules. Protection extends to employees, self-employed persons, shareholders, contractors and volunteers who obtain information in a work-related context.

Public and private sector

The law applies to both sectors. Private-sector legal entities with 50 or more employees (or, in the financial services and other regulated sectors, regardless of size) must establish internal reporting channels allowing confidential anonymous or named disclosures. Public authorities and institutions must establish equivalent channels. Designated reporting officers must handle disclosures promptly, maintain confidentiality and provide feedback within prescribed timeframes.

Protections

Whistleblowers are protected against retaliation including dismissal, demotion, discrimination and other adverse actions. Where retaliation is established, it is presumed to be unlawful unless the employer proves otherwise (reversed burden of proof). Whistleblowers are exempt from civil, criminal or administrative liability for the disclosure of information, provided the person had reasonable grounds to believe the information reported was true at the time of reporting. The ANI and dedicated external reporting channels at supervisory authorities serve as external reporting bodies for specific sectors.

Prior to the more recent Law No. 361/2022 transposing EU Directive 2019/1937, Romania already had Law No. 571/2004 concerning the protection of public authorities’ staff reporting certain legal violations. That law applied exclusively to the public sector and provided more limited protections. Today, Law No. 361/2022 supersedes and significantly expands upon this earlier framework.

Corporate response

Companies should maintain clear, accessible internal reporting channels with written procedures, train designated reporting officers and ensure disclosures are assessed promptly and confidentially. Reports of potentially criminal conduct should be evaluated with external legal counsel and escalated appropriately. Companies must not penalise reporters and should document all steps taken in response to a disclosure. Where the disclosure involves potential criminal conduct by senior management, the investigation should be referred to an independent body to avoid conflicts of interest.

Romania's enforcement record in white-collar crime cases is among the most active in Central and Eastern Europe over the past 15 years or more, driven primarily by the DNA and DIICOT.

DNA activity

Since its establishment, the DNA has become one of Europe’s most prolific anti-corruption prosecution offices. High-profile prosecutions have included former prime ministers, ministers, other officials, mayors, members of the Parliament, or business figures and companies. Notable cases include the prosecution and conviction of former ministers for tax evasion and money laundering (some later acquitted on appeal), and multiple prosecutions of county council presidents and public officials in connection with EU funds fraud and public procurement irregularities. The DNA led proceedings in various industry sectors, such as the construction, energy, pharmaceutical, public procurement, financial, logistics, defence, information technology and communications, infrastructure, etc.

EPPO

Since Romania joined the EPPO in 2021, Romanian delegated prosecutors have been active in EU funds fraud cases, including cross-border investigations involving fraudulent use of structural funds and agricultural subsidies. Romania has one of the highest numbers of EPPO investigations per capita in the EU.

Courts

The High Court of Cassation and Justice (ICCJ) handles first-instance proceedings in DNA and DIICOT cases involving high-ranking officials. The ICCJ has imposed significant custodial sentences in major corruption cases, including sentences of over 10 years’ imprisonment for aggravated corruption. The ICCJ has also confirmed extended confiscation orders in complex asset recovery cases.

As in other EU jurisdictions, enforcement has not been without controversy. For example, between 2017 and 2019, legislative amendments sought to narrow some of the corruption offences, limit the DNA’s mandate and introduce statutes of limitations that would have closed pending cases from a criminal law perspective. These were largely reversed following public protests and Constitutional Court decisions. The Venice Commission and the European Commission's Cooperation and Verification Mechanism (CVM) — in operation from 2007 until its positive closure in September 2023 — played a significant role in monitoring and sustaining institutional independence. Romania’s overall commitment to anti-corruption enforcement remains a key priority, embedded in its Group of States against Corruption (GRECO) and UNCAC obligations and reinforced by EU accession conditionalities, combined with the very advanced process of Romania’s accession to the OECD.

Despite Romania’s robust prosecution record, certain weaknesses in the investigation and enforcement of white-collar crime cases can still be encountered in some instances.

Prolonged proceedings

Criminal cases — particularly complex financial crime matters — are frequently subject to significant delays at both the investigation and judicial phases. The Code of Criminal Procedure’s multiple procedural stages, including preliminary chamber (camera preliminară) proceedings, multiple appeals and referrals to the Constitutional Court, mean that cases regularly span several years from the initiation of criminal investigation to final conviction. This creates uncertainty for defendants, victims and third parties and strains judicial resources.

Statute of limitations issues

Romania has faced repeated incidents with statutes of limitations (prescripția răspunderii penale) extinguishing criminal liability before final judgments are delivered in complex cases. For example and without entering into technical details, the RCC was amended to address ICCJ and Constitutional Court rulings that decided that limitation periods had expired in pending cases; the amendments themselves have generated further debates and interpretations. The matter has generated further litigation also before the Court of Justice of the EU (Lin, C-107/23 PPU).

Absence of corporate settlement mechanisms

Romania lacks a DPA or NPA framework or equivalent negotiated corporate resolution mechanism. Companies implicated in white-collar crime cases have no route to a supervised settlement that would allow cooperation, remediation and disgorgement without admitting criminal liability, which impacts wider groups in other jurisdictions. This reduces incentives for voluntary disclosure and self-remediation and places Romania at a comparative disadvantage relative to jurisdictions with more developed corporate enforcement toolkits.

Resource and capacity constraints

While the DNA and DIICOT are better resourced by regional standards, general prosecutor’s offices and courts at county level handling less prominent white-collar matters face capacity constraints, limited access to forensic accounting expertise and slower evidence processing, contributing to uneven enforcement across the country.

Romania is in an active phase of legislative reform in the white-collar crime field, driven by a combination of EU obligations, GRECO recommendations and domestic policy priorities. Romania’s speedy ongoing accession to the OECD has led to raising the compliance and enforcement bar in white-collar crime cases.

AML reform

Romania is in the process of implementing the EU’s latest AML package, including Regulation (EU) 2024/1624 (the AML Regulation) and the establishment of the new EU Anti-Money Laundering Authority (AMLA), which will begin directly supervising certain selected high-risk obliged entities from 2028, with the first selection process taking place in 2027. Domestic implementing legislation is expected to be finalised ahead of the 10 July 2027 application date of the AML Regulation. This will expand AML obligations, enhance beneficial ownership transparency and strengthen the ONPCSB’s powers.

Statute of limitations

Ongoing litigation before the Constitutional Court and the ICCJ concerning the application of amended limitation period rules is expected to generate further clarifications in 2026–2027, which will have significant practical consequences for pending criminal cases. A definitive legislative settlement remains elusive and is an area still generating uncertainty.

Corporate sanctions and DPA/NPA framework

Academic commentary and practitioner bodies have increasingly called for the introduction of a negotiated corporate resolution mechanism akin to the UK’s DPA, the US DPA/NPA framework or France’s Convention Judiciaire d’Intérêt Public. No specific legislative proposal has been formally put forward as yet, but the topic is gaining traction in policy discussions, particularly in the context of Romania’s OECD accession process, which requires compliance with anti-bribery enforcement standards.

EU anti-corruption directive package

In December 2025, the European Parliament and the Council reached a provisional agreement on the new Directive on combating corruption, following the Commission's initial proposal in May 2023. The Directive has since completed the legislative process, having been formally adopted by the Council on 21 April 2026 and published in the Official Journal on 11 May 2026. The new Directive aims to replace former frameworks and standardise anti-corruption norms across the European Union; this initiative has wide-ranging effects in several areas. For example, the new Directive sets out a framework of minimum alignment, with a regulatory floor level allowing Member States to adopt higher requirements. The scope of the corporate criminal liability is also extended. Maximum fines for legal entities are significant and tiered, reaching at least 5% of total worldwide turnover for the most serious offences (such as bribery and misappropriation) and at least 3% for certain other offences (such as trading in influence, obstruction of justice and enrichment), with fixed-amount alternatives where turnover cannot be determined. Additionally, the new Directive requires quite extensive structural duties on Member States, mandating specialised independent bodies and national strategies to ensure a comprehensive approach that encompasses both prevention and enforcement.

Other EU criminal law harmonisation

Romania is also required to implement Directive (EU) 2024/1203 on the protection of the environment through criminal law, introducing new environmental criminal offences; a draft transposing law was put out for public consultation by the Ministry of Environment in July 2026 and remains pending adoption. Also, the extension of EPPO’s mandate to cover cross-border serious crimes (if adopted by the EU) would also expand EPPO’s operational reach in Romania.

Criminal procedure

Ongoing discussions within authorities contemplate targeted amendments to, among others, reduce procedural delays, streamline the preliminary chamber phase and introduce time limits for investigation and judicial stages in complex economic crime cases.