Two people in marked vests walk into your premises, introduce themselves as inspectors and ask for the registers. You have received no notice, no appointment, no phone call. This is entirely lawful: both the unannounced control (controlul inopinat) and the tax anti-fraud control are, by definition, carried out without prior notice. What no law sets out, but what often decides the fate of the whole procedure, is your conduct in the first hours: what you say, what you hand over, what you sign.
The Tax Procedure Code allows two types of control without prior notice, and the notice of tax inspection is not required for either of them (Article 122(4) of the Tax Procedure Code). It is worth knowing, from the first second, which one you are facing, because the rules differ.
The unannounced control (controlul inopinat, Articles 134-135 of the Tax Procedure Code) is carried out by the ordinary tax authority and consists of a factual and documentary check, usually following a report of a breach of tax law, cross-checks (your documents compared with those of a business partner under control), or a targeted check of certain elements of the tax base or of a specific tax risk. Its duration is set by the head of the control body and may not exceed 30 days. As a rule, an unannounced control cannot run at the same time as a tax inspection on the same taxpayer, for the same transactions and obligations.
The anti-fraud control (Government Emergency Ordinance no. 74/2013 and Articles 137-137¹ of the Tax Procedure Code) is the preserve of inspectors from the General Anti-Fraud Directorate (DGAF), who carry out operational and unannounced checks, either routine or thematic, on the basis of their control identification, badge and service order. Anti-fraud typically steps in on indications of evasion: deliveries with no supporting documents, undeclared work, suspicious invoicing chains, major discrepancies in digital data (e-Factura, e-Transport, e-Sigiliu, SAF-T, cash registers).
A current development, and why this concerns you as an individual too. Under ANAF President's Order no. 768/2026 (published in the Official Gazette on 6 July 2026), anti-fraud inspectors may also carry out the review of personal tax affairs, with the 70% tax on income from an unidentified source. In practice, an anti-fraud control at a company can slide into the personal wealth of its director or shareholders: withdrawals from accounts, unrecorded shareholder loans, receipts into personal accounts, including foreign accounts reported through CRS.
Reception and staff need to know one thing in advance: “I will take you to the person responsible.” No one comments, confirms or denies anything on management's behalf.
For an unannounced control, the officers must show their control identification and service order (Article 135 of the Tax Procedure Code); for anti-fraud, the identification, the badge and the service order. Note down the names and numbers; if in doubt, call the issuing body.
Ask for the control to be recorded in the single register (Law no. 252/2003). It fixes the date, the subject matter and the team, essential markers for any later defence.
The control does not stop until your lawyer arrives, but nothing stops you having them on the phone from the first moment. Tell them the subject matter stated in the service order and follow their instructions.
All requests go through a single person. Employees answer politely, strictly to what is asked and strictly to what they know directly; they do not estimate, do not speculate, and do not describe “how things are usually done”.
Refusing to produce documents or to allow lawful access is a contravention (Article 336 of the Tax Procedure Code). Cooperation, however, does not mean spontaneous statements, uncontrolled handover of documents, or signatures given blindly.
Most first-day conflicts arise from a simple confusion: the taxpayer does not know what they must allow and what they may lawfully refuse. Here is the map.
They may check accounting and financial records, including in electronic form, and may ask representatives and employees for written explanatory notes.
Targeted stock-takes, cash on hand, inventory, checks of cash registers, taking of samples, all subject to the proper procedures.
Offices, working points, warehouses, vehicles used in the business. Mobile anti-fraud units may stop vehicles for a check.
This may be done, but only leaving evidence of it: a seizure record with an inventory, a detailed list of the documents taken.
They may apply seals to preserve goods, premises or documents. Precautionary measures (seizure, garnishment) are ordered by a reasoned decision, which can be challenged separately.
They may record contraventions, impose fines and, where there are indications of offences, draw up a referral to the criminal investigation bodies.
A search of a home or of computer systems is a criminal procedure measure, ordered by a judge (Articles 157 et seq., and Article 168, of the Code of Criminal Procedure, respectively). Inspectors may ask for documents and may access business premises, but they cannot “go through” a home, personal bags or personal phones, outside a criminal-procedure framework.
Access to a home is only possible with the occupant's consent; failing that, only with court authorisation, as provided by law.
Statements cannot be taken under duress. The explanatory note is an administrative tool: you have the right to ask for a reasonable time to answer in writing, with supporting documents, questions you do not know the answer to for certain on the spot.
The control record is not a title of claim. Payment obligations are established later, by a tax assessment decision issued following an inspection or a review, an act that is challenged through its own procedure.
WARNING. If seals are applied, do not break them and do not let anyone remove them; breaking seals is a criminal offence (Article 260 of the Criminal Code), separate from any tax discussion. Any complaint about the sealing should be recorded in writing and challenged through the proper legal channels, not through actions taken in the heat of the moment.
If the control team removes original documents, your protocol should be strict. A dispute over “what was taken”, conducted without an inventory, is almost always resolved against the taxpayer.
Each document identified individually: name, number, date, number of pages. Not generic descriptions such as “one binder of invoices”.
Physical or scanned, as far as possible. Ask for certified copies of the documents you need to keep the business running; it is your right.
Your copy of the record must be identical to the team's and signed by everyone present.
Note separately, in your internal records, who handed over what and when. More on what documents ANAF may ask for and what you risk if they are missing.
Remarks dropped “just between us”, about receipts with no bill, cash paid off the books, goods “belonging to a friend”, end up in the control record and, later, in case files. Do not fill the silences.
Once the originals are gone, rebuilding your defence becomes difficult, and the burden of proof remains yours.
Deleting files, backdating contracts, “completing” registers under the inspectors' eyes turns an administrative problem into a criminal one (Article 9 of Law no. 241/2005).
You may refuse to speculate and may ask for time to check, but untrue statements recorded in official documents follow you through the whole procedure.
Blocking access, a confrontational tone, threats involving connections, all escalate the control and stay on record.
A signature given without reservations on a record with inaccurate findings is hard to undo later. Do not sign any document you have not read in full.
One point deserves a note of its own: clumsily coordinating “versions” with business partners. Panicked phone calls to suppliers or clients to “tell the same story” can be read as an agreement to obstruct, and cross-checks exist precisely to compare versions.
At the end of the unannounced control, as with the anti-fraud control, a control record is drawn up, which serves as evidence; a copy is given to you (Articles 135 and 137¹ of the Tax Procedure Code). Before signing, four rules.
Every finding, including the annexes. What you do not read now, you read for the first time in court.
Figures, dates, identities: ask for these to be corrected on the spot, while it is still simple.
Where you disagree, set out your objections in writing, on the spot, briefly, then in detail within the time limit. Refusing to sign does not affect the act's validity; reasoned objections build your defence.
It is filed within 5 working days of communication, for both the unannounced control and the anti-fraud control; at DGAF it is reviewed by a structure separate from the team that carried out the control.
The control record does not itself establish payment obligations, is not a title of claim and is not challenged through the tax appeal procedure under Article 268 of the Tax Procedure Code. It can, however, feed into: a tax inspection or a documentary check, concluded with a tax assessment decision, which you can challenge within 45 days under Articles 268 to 270 of the Tax Procedure Code, with the possibility of suspending enforcement under Articles 14 to 15 of Law no. 554/2004; a criminal referral for tax evasion, with all the consequences of the two procedures running in parallel; or, for individuals, a review of personal tax affairs, usually preceded by a compliance notice (Article 140¹ of the Tax Procedure Code) and, within the review, by a request for the wealth and income statement.
WARNING. The 5-working-day time limit for the position statement passes extremely quickly and is your first, sometimes only, chance to put your documented account of the findings on the file. Do not treat it as a formality: what you do not challenge now will later be cited as unchallenged.
Do not make access conditional on your lawyer's arrival; refusing lawful access is a contravention and changes the tone of the whole procedure. The correct approach is to allow access once full identification has been shown, to call your lawyer at once, to appoint a single point of contact, and to put off substantive statements, within reason, until you have connected with your lawyer, even just by phone.
You have a general duty to cooperate and to provide relevant information, but you are not required to answer every question instantly. Ask for the questions in writing and a reasonable time for a documented answer; this is an accepted practice, and far safer than guessing on the spot. If the questions suggest an accusation of a criminal nature, stop and consult your lawyer before making any statement: what you write in an explanatory note can become evidence.
Documents may only be taken with a record and an inventory, and you are entitled to certified copies of the documents you need for day-to-day activity. Ask for them explicitly, in writing. Check the inventory before signing, and ask for the originals back as soon as the control no longer needs them.
No. Many controls end with a control record with no further consequences, or with a contravention fine. A criminal referral follows when inspectors find indications of tax evasion. This is precisely why discipline in the first hours matters: spontaneous statements, documents handed over in disorder and objections left unstated are the raw material later used to build both tax assessment decisions and criminal files.
Informative material, updated on 17 July 2026. It does not constitute legal or tax advice; individual situations must be assessed on their own facts.
If you have an inspection under way or have just received a notification, the related analyses are grouped under tax inspection and the review of individuals. For how such matters are handled, see tax assistance.
Time limits run from the date of communication. A first conversation clarifies what is being alleged, what you need to substantiate and how the defence is built, before an estimate becomes a tax assessment decision.