1. What is the current legal landscape for White Collar Crime in your jurisdiction?

1.1. Recent Trends in Romanian White-Collar Crime Cases

The white-collar crime landscape in Romania has matured significantly in recent years, mirroring a broader European trend toward aggressive enforcement and sophisticated prosecutorial techniques. Investigations are no longer isolated incidents of administrative oversight but have become part of a systemic effort by authorities to sanitize the business environment and protect the financial interests of both the state and the European Union.

Several dynamics are currently shaping the practice environment:

• Asset recovery and confiscation have become central to prosecution strategy. Extended confiscation — applicable where the value of assets held by a convicted person is disproportionate to their lawful income — is increasingly used in corruption and money laundering cases.
• Corporate criminal liability is formally recognised under Romanian law, with legal persons subject to fines and ancillary penalties including dissolution and suspension of activity. However, the practical enforcement of corporate liability remains less developed than in Western European jurisdictions, and compliance programmes do not yet operate as a formal mitigating factor.
• Whistleblower protection has been strengthened following the transposition of Directive (EU) 2019/1937, creating new reporting channels and anti-retaliation protections that are beginning to generate investigative leads in both public and private sector cases.

The overall picture is of a jurisdiction with a mature and well-resourced prosecution apparatus, operating within a legal framework that is substantially aligned with EU standards, but where the interaction between constitutional review, EU law primacy, and the rights of defendants continues to generate procedural complexity that practitioners must navigate with care.

Cases are increasingly originating from systemic compliance failures, particularly in the realms of cross-border tax structures, and sophisticated money laundering schemes.

A pivotal trend in the Romanian jurisdiction is the dominant role of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office (EPPO). As of 2026, Romania remains one of the most active jurisdictions for EPPO-led investigations, with a specific focus on complex VAT fraud and the misappropriation of funds related to the National Recovery and Resilience Plan (PNRR). The seamless cooperation between the EPPO and local bodies like the National Anticorruption Directorate (DNA) has eliminated many of the “jurisdictional safe havens” that companies previously relied upon in cross-border transactions.

The political landscape continues to prioritize a “tough on crime” stance, particularly concerning economic offences that impact the national budget. This political appetite has translated into legislative changes in late 2025 and early 2026, which have tightened the definitions of tax evasion and increased the severity of penalties for corporate executives. There is a clear mandate for judicial authorities to prioritize high-value asset recovery, making the financial consequences of an indictment often more devastating than the legal sanctions themselves. This mandate was initiated as early as mid 2021, when the paradigm shift, validated by the legislative modifications pertaining to tax evasion, marked the transition from an abstract punitive model to a utilitarian one, where the coercive function of criminal law is subordinated to the state’s financial interest, transforming the full restitution of damages from a mere mitigating circumstance into a genuine ground for non-punishment.

 

1.2. The Legislative Architecture

The core substantive framework rests on the Criminal Code (Codul Penal), which entered into force in 2014 and consolidated the principal white collar offences into a coherent structure. These provisions are supplemented by Law No 78/2000 on the prevention, detection and punishment of acts of corruption, which remains the primary instrument for prosecuting high-level corruption and offences committed by public officials in aggravated circumstances.

Also, by Law No 241/2005, as amended, with the main objective to establish a robust legal framework for preventing and combating tax evasion by ensuring the integrity of the consolidated national budget through the criminalization of fraudulent fiscal practices and the prioritization of financial recovery.

Money laundering is governed by Law No 129/2019, updated to reflect the latest changes in European legislation, which criminalises the conversion, transfer, concealment, and acquisition of property derived from criminal activity, with custodial sentences ranging from three to twelve years.

Fraud against the EU’s financial interests is prosecuted under the framework established by the PIF Directive (Directive (EU) 2017/1371), which Romania has transposed into national law.

 

1.3. The Institutional Framework

Prosecution of white-collar crime in Romania is distributed across three specialised structures operating within the Public Prosecutor’s Office attached to the High Court of Cassation and Justice (ÎCCJ), as follows:

• The National Anti-Corruption Directorate (DNA) holds exclusive jurisdiction over serious corruption cases, including offences committed against the EU’s financial interests — shared with EPPO — and certain categories of serious financial and economic crime. DNA has built a substantial track record of high-profile prosecutions, including of serving and former members of Parliament, ministers, judges, and other senior public officials.
• The Directorate for Investigating Organised Crime and Terrorism (DIICOT) handles organised crime, money laundering with an organised crime dimension, and related economic offences.
• The Prosecutor General’s Office retains competence over corruption cases that fall outside DNA’s jurisdictional thresholds.

 

2. What three essential pieces of advice would you give to clients involved in White Colar Crime matters?

Advice 1: Map both present exposure and future risk

White-collar crime matters rarely arrive without warning. In most cases, the conditions that give rise to criminal exposure — whether a flawed procurement process, an undisclosed conflict of interest, or a pattern of irregular payments — have been present within the organisation for some time before they attract the attention of prosecutors or regulators. The first and most consequential step a client can take, whether they are already under investigation or simply operating in a high-risk environment, is to conduct a rigorous and honest assessment of where exposure exists. That means looking backwards — at transactions, relationships, and decisions that may already have generated criminal risk — and forwards, at the structural vulnerabilities within the business that could produce the next case.

Critically, this assessment must not be treated as a one-time exercise. The Romanian white-collar crime landscape is shaped by an evolving interaction between domestic criminal law, EU-level obligations — including those arising from the PIF Directive and the anti-money laundering framework — and the expanding perimeter of sanctions compliance following the EU’s restrictive measures regime. New risk categories emerge continuously. Prevention, in this jurisdiction, is not a static posture — it is an ongoing discipline.

 

Advice 2: Engage counsel early and protect privilege from the outset

When a client first becomes aware of a potential white-collar crime matter — whether through an internal report, a regulatory inquiry, a dawn raid, or simply a credible rumour of an investigation — the instinct is often to gather information internally before involving external lawyers. That instinct, however understandable, carries significant legal risk in Romania. Once the prosecutorial body opens a criminal investigation, the procedural dynamics shift rapidly: witnesses are interviewed, documents are seized, and digital evidence is secured, frequently before the target of the investigation has had any meaningful opportunity to understand the scope of what is being examined.

Equally important is the question of legal professional privilege. Internal investigations conducted without proper structuring risk generating documents and communications that are not protected and that prosecutors may subsequently seek to access. In Romania, the boundaries of attorney-client privilege in the context of internal investigations — particularly where in-house counsel is involved — require careful attention. In a jurisdiction where criminal proceedings can move quickly and unpredictably, that structural discipline is not a luxury — it is a necessity.

 

Advice 3: Don’t wait — take the investigation seriously from day one and use every procedural tool available

The most common and most costly mistake made by clients under criminal investigation in Romania is passivity. The instinct to wait — to see what the prosecution has, to avoid drawing attention, to hope that the case will not progress — is understandable, but it is strategically wrong. Romanian criminal procedure, governed by Law No 135/2010 (the Code of Criminal Procedure), provides suspects and accused persons with a meaningful arsenal of procedural rights that, if exercised actively and intelligently, can materially shape the trajectory of an investigation. Those rights are not self-executing. They must be claimed, deployed, and followed through — and the window for doing so effectively is often narrower than clients expect.

From the moment a client becomes officially accused, the procedural clock starts running. Under Articles 83 and 78 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the accused has the right to know the charges, to access the investigation file, to propose evidence, to challenge the legality of investigative acts, and to raise exceptions regarding the admissibility of evidence obtained in breach of fundamental rights. Active defence also means engaging with the investigation on the merits. Clients who propose their own evidence — expert reports, financial analyses, witness statements, documentary records — force the prosecution to address a competing factual narrative rather than building its case in a vacuum. Requests to the prosecutor under Article 94 for access to the investigation file, motions to exclude evidence, complaints to the hierarchically superior prosecutor under Article 339, and challenges before the judge of rights and liberties are all instruments that a well-advised client should be using continuously, not saving for trial. By the time the case reaches the court, the evidentiary landscape has largely been set. Clients who were passive during the investigation phase frequently find themselves at trial with a file built entirely by the prosecution, facing evidence they never challenged and a factual record they never contested. In a jurisdiction where DNA and DIICOT operate with significant investigative resources and institutional momentum, the defence that waits is the defence that loses.

 

3. What are the greatest threats and opportunities in White Collar Crime law in the next 12 months?

The Threats: A Digital and Institutional Panopticon

The most immediate threat is the “encirclement” of corporate activities by the European Public Prosecutor’s Office (EPPO). Romania has become a primary theater for EPPO operations, particularly regarding VAT fraud and the scrutiny of funds related to the National Recovery and Resilience Plan (PNRR). The threat is no longer just a domestic audit; it is a cross-border, multi-jurisdictional investigation where house searches and asset seizures are deployed with unprecedented speed and coordination.

Romania is facing an unprecedented acceleration of compliance obligations generated by EU law, and the pace of that evolution is itself a distinct criminal risk. Directive (EU) 2024/1226 on criminal penalties for the violation of Union restrictive measures introduced, from May 2025, an obligation for relevant entities to report transactions suspected of circumventing sanctions to financial intelligence units — an obligation that overlaps with the existing anti-money laundering regime under Directive (EU) 2018/1673 and with Regulation (EU) No 833/2014 on restrictive measures in view of Russia’s actions in Ukraine.

Simultaneously, the digitalization of the National Agency for Fiscal Administration (ANAF) represents a “technological threat” to non-compliant structures. With the 2026 implementation of RO e-Proprietate and the expansion of e-Invoicing to B2C operations, the state now possesses real-time visibility into transactions that were previously opaque. This digital panopticon is augmented by new enforcement tools, such as body-worn cameras for tax inspectors and stricter requirements for corporate bank accounts, where a lack of transparency can lead to immediate fiscal “inactivity”. Furthermore, procedural shifts have increased the risk of corporate “collateral damage.” The introduction of the “interested legal person” figure allows companies to be held liable as a first recourse during criminal proceedings against individuals, significantly narrowing the window for companies to distance themselves from the actions of rogue employees or managers.

 

The Opportunities: Strategic Remediation and Digital Defense

If the threats are real, the opportunity is equally concrete. Organisations that invest now in robust, credible compliance infrastructure position themselves favourably both with enforcement authorities and with commercial counterparties. The transposition of Directive (EU) 2019/1937 on the protection of whistleblowers has created formal internal reporting obligations for organisations above the relevant thresholds — but it has also created a framework in which companies that genuinely operationalise those channels demonstrate an organisational culture that DNA and DIICOT can distinguish from entities that treat compliance as a formal exercise.

Companies that can demonstrate they took reasonable steps to prevent criminal conduct, investigated internal reports, and acted on their findings occupy the most defensible position possible when an investigation begins. In a jurisdiction where extended confiscation under Article 112¹ of the Criminal Code can reach assets acquired years before the alleged offence — as confirmed by the ECtHR in Telbis and Viziteu v Romania — the cost of that investment is modest compared to the exposure it mitigates. In a market where international competitiveness is increasingly shaped by compliance reputation, that investment is not a cost. It is a decisive strategic advantage.

 

4. How do you ensure high client satisfaction levels are maintained by your practice?

First and foremost, we recognize that for a client, a white-collar investigation is often an existential crisis. Maintaining satisfaction starts with radical availability. In Romania, enforcement actions like dawn raids or emergency summons often occur at the least expected moments. Our practice ensures that a senior partner is reachable 24/7, providing not just legal guidance but a stabilizing presence that helps the client navigate the initial shock of a criminal investigation. This “first-responder” mentality builds a foundation of trust that persists throughout the case.

Secondly, we prioritize strategic transparency. One of the greatest sources of client frustration is the “black box” of the legal process. We ensure high satisfaction by demystifying the Romanian criminal procedure, providing regular, detailed updates on the status of the case file, and being brutally honest about the potential outcomes. Clients appreciate realism over false optimism; knowing exactly where they stand allows them to make informed decisions about their business operations and personal lives without the added stress of uncertainty.

We also believe in personal accountability and direct partner involvement. We ensure satisfaction by guaranteeing that the lead partner is deeply involved in the “nitty-gritty” of the case file — attending every critical hearing, reviewing key evidence, and leading the strategy sessions. This high level of personal commitment ensures that the defence is nuanced and that the client feels their matter is receiving the priority it deserves.

Furthermore, we focus on bespoke strategy development. There is no “one-size-fits-all” in white-collar defence. We maintain satisfaction by listening intently to the client’s specific objectives — whether that is a quiet settlement, a full trial to clear their name, or minimizing operational disruption. Every legal motion and every interaction with the prosecutor is calibrated against these goals. When a client sees their specific business or personal needs reflected in the legal strategy, their satisfaction with the representation increases significantly.

 

5. What technological advancements are reshaping White Collar Crime Law and how can clients benefit from them?

The most significant advancement reshaping the landscape is the institutional adoption of Big Data analytics and AI-driven pattern recognition. In Romania, the integration of SAF-T (Standard Audit File for Tax) and RO e-Factura into the tax authority’s (ANAF) core infrastructure has created a massive, real-time repository of corporate behaviour.

On the defense side, the “technological threat” from authorities is being met with the rise of AI-powered defence. In modern white-collar cases, the evidence is no longer measured in boxes of paper but in terabytes of data — emails, Slack messages, and metadata. Technological advancements allow defence teams to ingest millions of documents and, within hours, identify the “smoking gun” or, more importantly, the exculpatory evidence that would take a human team months to find.

Technological advancements in end-to-end encrypted communication and secure data ensure that sensitive internal investigations remain privileged and protected from premature leaks or unauthorized access during the highly sensitive “pre-indictment” phase.