Bribery lawyer in Bucharest - giving and taking bribes

• The capacity of the investigated person and their actual duties.
• The link between the sum or benefit claimed and a concrete official act.
• The lawfulness of interceptions, ambient recordings and authorisations.
• How the flagrante delicto operation was organised and how the seized items were recorded.
• The statements of the reporting person and their consistency throughout the file.
• The precautionary measures ordered over accounts and assets.

Flagrante delicto is the moment when most of the evidence against you is gathered, but also the moment when most procedural mistakes are made. The first hours after it often decide the direction of the whole case.

Do not sign anything and do not explain anything before speaking with a lawyer. You have the right to remain silent and that right cannot be used against you.

Art. 290 of the Criminal Code contains two important safety valves for the person who gave the bribe: the situation where the act was committed under coercion and the exemption from punishment through self-reporting. Both have strict conditions.

Many people investigated for bribery do not recognise themselves in the wording „I gave” or „I took a bribe”. In practice, the discussion is about a gift, a token of appreciation, a meal, a repair, a discount or help between acquaintances.

Art. 289 of the Criminal Code refers to money or other undue benefits received in connection with performing, not performing, speeding up or delaying an act falling within the official duties of the public official. The link with official duties is what turns a social gesture into a criminal charge.

• The link with official duties: whether the person had the power to decide on, approve or influence that act.
• Undue benefits: any financial or non-financial advantage the person was not entitled to, regardless of what it was called.
• Timing: a benefit offered before the act is seen differently from a gift given long after a working relationship ended.
• Value and context: a symbolic gesture in a private context, unrelated to a pending file, does not carry the same meaning as a benefit proportionate to the decision obtained.
• Repetition: repeated tokens of appreciation given to the same decision maker are almost always interpreted as a bribe.

There are situations with no offense at all: courtesy gestures unrelated to an official act, advantages granted lawfully and transparently, or payments made under a genuine contract with supporting documents.

Where the benefit was offered to a person claiming influence over an official, the correct classification may be influence peddling or buying influence, with a different evidentiary regime.

In corruption files, interceptions and ambient recordings are often the central evidence. That is exactly why they are also the evidence most open to challenge, when analysed in detail.

• Authorisation: I check the existence and limits of the technical surveillance warrant, the period covered, the persons and means of communication targeted, and the reasoning behind the measure.
• Integrity of the recording: continuity of the files, absence of unjustified interruptions, the way it was stored and transferred, the existence of reference copies.
• Context of the conversation: an isolated sentence can completely change the meaning; I request the full conversation, not only the selected excerpt.
• Incomplete transcripts: I compare the written version with the audio to identify omitted passages, misheard words or lines wrongly attributed.
• Interpretation of ambiguous expressions: generic phrases such as „we will sort it out” or „we will see what we can do” do not, on their own, prove a promise of a bribe.

In parallel with the criminal investigation, the prosecutor can order precautionary measures over assets and accounts, in order to secure confiscation or recovery of the damage. These measures immediately affect daily activity and the family business.

• Precautionary measures: seizure, garnishment and freezing of accounts can be ordered by prosecutor's order, before any conviction.
• What assets can be frozen: sums of money, bank accounts, real estate, vehicles and, in certain situations, assets held by other persons.
• Special confiscation: the money and benefits received as a bribe are confiscated and, if they can no longer be found, their equivalent in money or assets is confiscated.
• Return of assets: assets given under coercion or connected to a report made before the authorities were notified can be returned.
• Challenging the measure: seizure can be challenged and its limits reduced where it exceeds the value of the alleged benefit or covers assets unrelated to the act.

I check the proportionality of the measure, the lawful source of the assets and the documents showing they do not come from the investigated act. A well documented challenge can unblock economic activity even during the criminal investigation.

Taking a bribe means claiming, receiving or accepting the promise of money or other benefits by a public official, in connection with performing, not performing or delaying an act falling within their official duties.

The offense is set out in art. 289 of the Criminal Code and can be retained even if the money was never actually received, since claiming or accepting the promise is enough.

Where the case is investigated alongside other economic charges, the file often falls within the area of economic crime defense, with expert evidence and analysis of financial flows.

Giving a bribe consists of promising, offering or giving money or other benefits to a public official so that the official performs, does not perform or delays an official act. The offense is set out in art. 290 of the Criminal Code.

The law provides two important situations: the act is not an offense where the person was coerced into giving the bribe, and the giver is not punished if they report the act before the criminal investigation body was notified.

The text targets public officials, but liability is extended by art. 308 of the Criminal Code to persons exercising duties within a private legal entity, such as directors, managers or employees with decision-making powers.

Law 78/2000 assimilates certain professional categories and extends these texts to corruption acts connected with public or European funds.

In bribery, the benefit is claimed by or offered to the very official who holds the relevant duty.

In buying or trading influence, the benefit goes to a person who claims to have influence over the official, without the official receiving anything.

This distinction has direct consequences for the legal classification and for the evidence that must be produced.

• I check whether there is proven link between the benefit and a concrete official act.
• I challenge the lawfulness of evidence obtained through interception or through a collaborator.
• I analyse the role of the reporting person and any entrapment.
• I argue coercion or lack of intent, where the evidence allows it.
• I prepare you for questioning and assist you at every hearing, including in files handled by DNA.

When the investigation is run by the anticorruption prosecutors, the specific rules are described on the page dedicated to DNA case assistance.