Organized crime group lawyer in Bucharest

I check:

• how many people are alleged to be part of the group;
• the period during which the group is said to have operated;
• how it would have been structured;
• whether there is coordination between the persons;
• the criminal purpose attributed to the group;
• the specific role imputed to the client;
• the moment of the alleged joining;
• the acts said to amount to supporting the group;
• the conversations and wiretaps;
• technical surveillance;
• meetings and travel;
• money transfers;
• data from phones and other devices;
• statements of co-defendants, witnesses or collaborators;
• the link between the client and the offenses said to be part of the group's purpose;
• whether the evidence describes an organized group or only contacts and isolated activities.

Art. 367 of the Criminal Code defines the organized crime group as a structured group of three or more persons, set up for a certain period of time and acting in a coordinated manner in order to commit one or more offenses.

The law criminalises:

• initiating a group;
• setting up the group;
• joining it;
• supporting such a group, in any form.

No.

The number of persons is only one of the conditions.

Art. 367 also requires a structured group, set up for a certain period and intended for coordinated action with a criminal purpose.

That is why the following must be analysed specifically:

• the duration of the relationship between the persons;
• the organisation;
• the coordination;
• the actual roles;
• the common purpose;
• the evidence showing that the investigated person knew and accepted that purpose.

This is not a condition under the current definition in art. 367 para. (6).

Unlike older provisions, the current definition focuses on the structure of at least three persons, its duration, the coordination and the purpose of committing one or more offenses. The Constitutional Court explained this difference between the former and the current provisions.

Joining requires more than simply knowing some members of the group.

Case law has described joining as actually entering the group, accepting its purpose and its manner of action and contributing to achieving it.

In a specific case I check:

• when the prosecution claims the joining took place;
• which act would demonstrate it;
• whether the person knew the purpose of the group;
• whether there is evidence of an actual contribution;
• whether the interpretation of the conversations is supported by other evidence.

A charge of supporting must be tied to specific acts.

It must be identified:

• what help is said to have been given;
• to whom;
• when;
• for what purpose;
• whether the person knew the nature and purpose of the group;
• what evidence proves the link between the help and the group's activity.

A commercial or personal relationship, or a conversation, must not automatically be confused with criminal support of a group.

For initiating, setting up, joining or supporting an organized crime group, art. 367 para. (1) provides imprisonment from 1 to 5 years and a ban on exercising certain rights.

If the offense forming the group's purpose is punished with life imprisonment or with imprisonment of more than 10 years, art. 367 para. (2) provides imprisonment from 3 to 10 years and a ban on exercising certain rights.

If the group's activity is followed by the commission of the intended offenses, the rules on concurrent offenses apply.

Art. 367 does not automatically replace the offense that would have been the purpose of the group.

For example, in a drug case the following may be analysed separately:

• setting up or joining the group;
• drug trafficking;
• international drug trafficking;
• other acts attributed to each person.

I have dedicated pages on cross-border drug trafficking, on possession for personal use and on drug cases in general.

Such cases can involve a very large volume of evidence.

The following may be used:

• wiretaps;
• technical surveillance;
• messaging app conversations;
• phone data;
• photographs;
• location data;
• travel records;
• financial transfers;
• documents and contracts;
• statements of the other persons;
• witness statements;
• undercover investigators or collaborators;
• evidence on the offenses said to be part of the group's purpose.

One of the most important parts of the defence is separating the evidence about the group as a whole from the evidence that specifically shows the client's conduct.

The fact that a piece of evidence concerns another defendant does not automatically mean it also proves the conduct of everyone else.

Mere presence in a messaging group does not on its own prove all the elements of art. 367.

The following must be analysed:

• the reason why the person was in the conversation;
• the specific messages;
• the period;
• who actually communicated;
• the subsequent actions;
• knowledge of the alleged criminal purpose;
• the link between the conversations and the acts under investigation.

The full context of the conversation can be just as important as the individual messages selected by the prosecution.

The Criminal Code contains special provisions that can become extremely important in certain situations.

The law provides for exemption from punishment for the person who reports the group to the authorities under the conditions and at the moment strictly provided by art. 367.

In addition, if the person who committed one of the acts under art. 367 para. (1)-(3) facilitates, during the criminal investigation, the establishment of the truth and the criminal liability of one or more members of the group, the special limits of the penalty are reduced by half.

These provisions have precise conditions and procedural moments. Do not decide on statements or cooperation before you understand the concrete legal effects.

In complex cases there is a risk that a person is described through the general activity of the group and not through their own actions.

In the defence I aim to delimit:

• what the client actually did;
• what the client did not do;
• what the client knew;
• what the client could not have known;
• the period of the links with the others;
• whether the client actually took part in the coordination;
• whether the client knew the criminal purpose;
• whether the individual evidence supports the prosecutor's conclusions.

Emergency Ordinance no. 78/2016 sets DIICOT's jurisdiction for the categories of offenses provided by law and for art. 367 when the group's purpose includes certain offenses within DIICOT's jurisdiction.

The offenses provided by Law no. 143/2000 on drugs fall within DIICOT's jurisdiction.

Such cases can involve lengthy investigations, large volumes of evidence and several persons with different procedural positions.

I analyse separately:

• the existence of the alleged group;
• the structure and the duration;
• the criminal purpose;
• the coordination;
• the client's role;
• the moment of the alleged joining or support;
• the individual evidence;
• the relation to the target offense;
• the legality of the evidence;
• the related charges.

I do not start from the premise that activity attributed to the other persons can automatically be transferred to the client.

I personally handle the case strategy and the representation for which I take the mandate.

If the charge uses wording such as:

• "organized crime group";
• "joining";
• "supporting";
• "role within the group";
• "coordinated activity";

send me the document describing the charge and tell me when the next hearing takes place.