The file starts with a complaint from the company over sums withdrawn by the director. A few months later, the order commencing criminal proceedings contains two offences, not one. Nothing new has happened on the merits, the same withdrawals, the same documents. Only the reading has changed: the money ended up in a personal account, part of it went to the spouse, another part became a deposit on a flat. The stakes double: a heavier sentence, a wider seizure, extended confiscation.
Under Article 49(1) of Legea nr. 129/2019, three alternative forms of conduct constitute the offence of money laundering and are punishable by three to ten years' imprisonment. Each has its own physical element, and that is the starting point for any serious defence.
Conversion or transfer of property, knowing that it derives from the commission of offences, for the purpose of concealing or disguising its unlawful origin or for the purpose of helping the perpetrator of the predicate offence to evade prosecution, trial or the execution of a sentence. The only form of conduct that requires a special purpose.
Concealment or disguise of the true nature, origin, location, disposition, movement or ownership of property or of rights over it, knowing that the property derives from the commission of offences.
Acquisition, possession or use of property by a person other than the perpetrator of the offence from which the property derives, knowing that it derives from the commission of offences. That underlined wording, by itself, decides a significant part of these cases.
“Predicate offence” means the offence from which the property derives. Legea nr. 129/2019 does not list them exhaustively: the phrase “derives from the commission of offences” covers any offence that generates property, and embezzlement, in the form of Article 295 and Article 308, clearly falls within that category.
Two points are essential. First: money laundering is an autonomous offence; it is not conditional on there being a final conviction for the predicate offence, a matter settled by ÎCCJ Decision no. 16 of 8 June 2016. Second: autonomy does not mean that the criminal origin of the property can be presumed. In the money laundering proceedings, the prosecution must prove that the property actually derives from an act defined by criminal law. If embezzlement is not proven, the money laundering charge is left without an object. The presumption of innocence remains the rule until a final judgment.
The question every client asks, “I embezzled the money, then transferred it; can I be convicted of both?”, has a nuanced answer, the result of ten years of case law. The order of the stages matters, because each one changed something.
Under Legea nr. 656/2002, the supreme court held that the perpetrator of money laundering could also be the perpetrator of the predicate offence.
On 19 June 2018, the Constitutional Court (CCR) upheld the objection and found that Article 29(1)(c) of Legea nr. 656/2002, as interpreted by ÎCCJ Decision no. 16/2016 regarding the perpetrator, was unconstitutional. The perpetrator of the predicate offence cannot also be the perpetrator of money laundering in the form of acquisition, possession or use.
The legislature adopted the Constitutional Court's solution and wrote it expressly into the text of point (c): “by a person other than the perpetrator of the offence from which the property derives”.
In Parchetul de pe lângă Tribunalul Brașov v LG and MH, judgment of 2 September 2021, the Court confirmed that EU law does not preclude national legislation allowing money laundering to be committed by the perpetrator of the predicate offence. EU law permits self-laundering; it does not, however, require it for every form of conduct.
The practical result: self-laundering remains possible under points (a) and (b); someone who is said to have embezzled and then transferred or disguised the money can be charged with money laundering, but it is excluded by the legislature's express intention under point (c). The mere possession or use, by the person accused of embezzlement, of the money they are said to have misappropriated cannot amount to money laundering. It is a distinction that indictments frequently miss.
NOTE: If the money laundering charge is based on Article 49(1)(c) of Legea nr. 129/2019, and the accused is the very person to whom the embezzlement is attributed, the classification is contrary to the statutory text, which expressly requires “a person other than the perpetrator of the offence from which the property derives”. This is the first thing to check in the prosecution order or the indictment, and a serious ground for requesting a change of legal classification.
Three to ten years, compared with two to seven years for basic embezzlement, and one year and four months to four years and eight months for the mitigated form under Article 308 of the Criminal Code.
For money laundering the term is 8 years (Article 154(1)(c) of the Criminal Code). The common claim that “money laundering extends the limitation period” is, however, only partly accurate: compared with basic embezzlement, the term is identical, also 8 years. The real extension only appears compared with the private-sector form (Article 308), where the term is 5 years: there, a case that is time-barred on embezzlement can stay alive on money laundering.
Money laundering means the case is tried at first instance by the tribunal (Article 36 of the Code of Criminal Procedure). The body conducting the investigation, however, generally remains the ordinary prosecutor's office, see below.
The seizure no longer targets only compensation for the loss, but also property liable to special or extended confiscation, a much wider basis. The mechanism is set out in the analysis on precautionary measures in economic crime cases.
The harshest tool, one that would be harder to argue for on simple embezzlement alone. Discussed in detail below.
A case involving money laundering justifies investigative methods and a duration that a simple embezzlement case would not support, the same logic described in the analysis on the stages of the criminal investigation.
Who investigates. Contrary to a common fear, private-sector embezzlement does not, by the addition of a money-laundering charge, trigger the jurisdiction of a specialised body. Money laundering falls within the jurisdiction of DIICOT (the Directorate for Investigating Organised Crime and Terrorism) only if the property derives from an offence that is itself within that directorate's jurisdiction. And embezzlement falls within DIICOT's jurisdiction only in limited situations, essentially when it has produced particularly serious consequences and was committed for the purpose of an organised criminal group, within the meaning of Article 367 of the Criminal Code. An embezzlement case from a private company, with no organised-crime element and no connection to corruption offences, remains, as a rule, with the ordinary prosecutor's office, tried at first instance by the tribunal.
The direct question: is buying an asset with embezzled money automatically money laundering? No. If it were, every embezzlement would mechanically be followed by money laundering, because no one misappropriates money just to leave it untouched.
Money laundering requires its own physical element, separate from the ordinary use of the money, directed at concealing or disguising its unlawful origin. The law does not criminalise the consumption of the proceeds of crime; it criminalises the operation by which they are laundered, that is, reintroduced into the lawful circuit with an appearance of legitimacy.
The practical test: what, in that particular operation, is additional to simply spending the money? A transfer to one's own account, in one's own name, followed by a transparent payment to a property developer, with a notarised contract and registration in the land register, conceals nothing, the money trail is visible to anyone who looks for it. By contrast, routing money through transit accounts, using a proxy, sham contracts, sums split below reporting thresholds, or opaque structures do describe a disguise.
The second element that must be proved is the mental element: knowledge of the unlawful origin and, under point (a), the special purpose of concealment. The law expressly provides that these elements may be inferred from objective factual circumstances. “Inferred” does not, however, mean “presumed”: inference requires concrete circumstances, stated in the charging document and verifiable, not a global assessment of the defendant's conduct.
Spouse, parents, children. The third party may themselves become a suspect, under point (c), but only if it is proved that they knew of the origin.
Bought during the period of the offences, especially in someone else's name. Purchase in one's own name, with a notarised deed and registration in the land register, is exactly the opposite of concealment.
Interposed companies and invoices for unverifiable services, “consultancy”, “management”. Here the discussion shifts to whether the operation was real.
Treated, by their nature, as an indicator of concealment, even though a transfer to one's own account on a platform with KYC identification is, technically, perfectly traceable.
Withdrawals split below the reporting thresholds. The rules applicable to cash flows are detailed in the analysis on cash and bank transfers.
Account 4551 and successive repayments, often read as a concealment circuit, even though they can have a genuine cause. In detail, in the analysis on the director's loans to and from the company.
None of these patterns constitutes, by itself, an offence. They are investigative indicators, and confusing an indicator with evidence is a common error, corrected by asking the prosecution to show, concretely, what exactly was concealed and from whom.
Banks, notaries, accountants and the other reporting entities are required to send the Oficiul Național de Prevenire și Combatere a Spălării Banilor (the National Office for the Prevention and Control of Money Laundering) reports on suspicious transactions, as well as on operations exceeding the thresholds set by law. A suspicious transaction report is not an accusation and does not imply guilt; it is an administrative flag.
Lawyers are in a distinct position. The reporting obligation does not apply to information received from the client, or obtained in connection with the client, while assessing the legal situation, in performing the duty of defence or representation in judicial proceedings or in connection with such proceedings, including advice on whether to bring or avoid proceedings, regardless of whether the information was received before, during or after the proceedings. The exception falls away if the lawyer knows that the assistance is being sought for the very purpose of laundering money.
This protection was confirmed by statute through Legea nr. 86/2025, published in the Official Gazette no. 483 of 23 May 2025, which amended and supplemented Legea nr. 129/2019. The original bill sought to repeal Article 33(5) and amend Article 33(4), provisions which guarantee, the first, that lawyers apply the anti-money-laundering law in compliance with Legea nr. 51/1995 on the preservation of professional secrecy, and the second, that professional secrecy is enforceable against the Office. In the form adopted, both were kept, and national risk assessments are carried out in compliance with professional secrecy. The practical conclusion for the client: a discussion with the lawyer, held to assess the legal situation or for the defence, is not reportable.
Special confiscation (Article 112 of the Criminal Code) targets property acquired through the offence, if it is not returned to the injured party and to the extent it is not used to compensate them. Its link to the figure in the case file is direct, see the analysis on the amount of the loss and challenging it.
Extended confiscation (Article 112¹ of the Criminal Code) is the harsher tool. Following the amendment made by Legea nr. 228/2020, it is no longer limited to a list of offences: it applies to any offence capable of producing a material benefit and for which the sentence provided by law is imprisonment for 4 years or more, a condition met by both embezzlement and money laundering. The court can confiscate property acquired within a period of 5 years before and, where applicable, after the moment the offence was committed, up to the date the court is seised, if it becomes convinced that the property derives from criminal activity, a conviction which may be based on the disproportion between lawful income and assets.
In practice: an embezzlement case involving money laundering can reach assets bought years before the offences charged, on the basis of comparative reasoning, not a direct link. It is the same kind of asset-based reasoning described in the analysis on the personal tax status review and the asset disproportion, with the essential difference that there the consequence is a tax one, and here, a criminal one.
The strongest one. If the operation treated as money laundering is simply using the money, there is no disguise, and therefore no physical element.
Contrary to the statutory text, following CCR Decision no. 418/2018 and the express wording of Legea nr. 129/2019. Checked within the first minutes of reading the prosecution order.
The asset must be linked, evidentially, to the offence that generated it, not to a general suspicion about the estate. The mixing of lawful funds with allegedly unlawful ones is resolved through the accounts.
A spouse, relative or company that receives an asset without knowing its origin is not liable; knowledge must be proved, not inferred from the degree of kinship.
For extended confiscation, proving lawful sources for the relevant period, declared income, loans, gifts, earlier sales, is a laborious documentary exercise, but a decisive one.
None of these defences produces a guaranteed result. Each depends on the actual evidence and the court's assessment. What they have in common is that they are raised early, at the first reading of the charge, not in closing submissions on the merits.
Not automatically. Transparently buying an asset, in one's own name, with a contract and regular registration, does not conceal or disguise the origin of the funds, the trail remains visible. Money laundering requires a separate physical act, directed at disguising the unlawful origin. Merely spending the proceeds is not criminalised.
Yes, it is possible, in the forms of conduct set out in Article 49(1)(a) and (b) of Legea nr. 129/2019; self-laundering is not excluded under Romanian law, and the CJEU confirmed, in case C-790/19, that EU law does not preclude it. It is, however, excluded under point (c): acquisition, possession or use must belong to a person other than the perpetrator of the predicate offence.
She could be investigated under point (c), but only if it is proved that she knew the property derived from the commission of offences. Knowledge is not presumed from being the spouse. It may be inferred from objective factual circumstances, but the circumstances must be shown concretely. Without that evidence, the conduct does not meet the constituent elements of the offence.
It may fall within the scope of extended confiscation (Article 112¹ of the Criminal Code), which covers property acquired in the 5 years before the offence was committed. The defence consists of proving lawful sources of financing, declared income, loans, gifts, earlier sales, to remove the disproportion on which the court's conviction rests.
No, as a rule. Money laundering falls within DIICOT's jurisdiction only if the property derives from an offence that is itself within that directorate's jurisdiction, and embezzlement reaches it only in limited situations, essentially when it has produced particularly serious consequences and was committed for the purpose of an organised criminal group. An embezzlement case from a private company, with no organised crime and no connection to corruption offences, remains with the ordinary prosecutor's office, tried at first instance by the tribunal.
Informative material, updated on 18 July 2026. It does not constitute legal or tax advice; individual situations must be assessed on their own facts, on the documents in the file, and the outcome of each case depends on the facts, the evidence and the court's assessment. Every person under investigation is presumed innocent until a conviction becomes final.
If the matter involves a criminal complaint or an open file, the related analyses are grouped under economic criminal law. For how such charges are handled, see defence in money laundering cases.
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.