In a tax evasion (evaziune fiscală) case, the outcome is not usually decided by the eloquence of the closing argument. It is decided by a figure: the loss (prejudiciul). That figure determines the legal classification, the aggravating factors, jurisdiction, the extent of the seizure and the limits of the sentence. Whoever accepts it unchecked loses ground that cannot be recovered later. This is where the party-appointed tax expert steps in, not to plead the case, but to take apart, technically, the prosecution's calculation.
This analysis describes the expert's technical role in the criminal defence. It promises no outcome: every case depends on its facts, on the evidence and on the court's assessment, and every person benefits from the presumption of innocence.
Tax evasion offences are built around a sum supposedly withheld from the state budget. Everything revolves around that sum. This is why the productive defence is, statistically, the defence built on the figure: the loss is the element most often overstated and the easiest to verify objectively. We cover the general lines of this defence separately, in the analysis on the defence in a tax evasion case.
A “party-appointed tax expert” is the specialist engaged by the suspect, the defendant or the party liable in civil damages to analyse, technically, how the loss was established. In fiscal-criminal matters, the status of judicial expert belongs either to chartered accountants registered with CECCAR (the body of chartered accountants, O.G. nr. 65/1994), or to tax advisers registered with the Chamber of Tax Advisers (CCF, O.G. nr. 71/2001), listed with the Ministry of Justice. A VAT or corporate income tax loss is, essentially, a matter of applied tax law; we cover the difference between the two professions in the companion article on tax expert evidence compared with accounting expert evidence. Their basic role is described in what the party-appointed tax expert is; the position of the accountant and the director is discussed in the liability of the accountant and the director.
The loss established by the prosecution is a result, the outcome of methodological choices that can be right or wrong. The party-appointed expert checks each one.
Interest and penalties are late-payment charges (accesorii) on the tax claim, not sums taken through the offence. Including them inflates the figure and can push the case over statutory thresholds. The criminal loss is the principal debt evaded, not the claim as a whole.
When the right of deduction is refused, the output VAT collected and paid by the same company on its downstream transactions is frequently left uncompensated. The result is a loss figure that ignores what has already gone into the state budget.
Where the parties did not expressly provide for VAT, treating the amount received as already including the tax changes the base by more than a fifth, the difference between applying the rate to the amount and extracting it from the amount.
In chains of companies, the same transaction is sometimes counted at several links as a separate loss. The state has not lost the same sum more than once.
Checking a sample of a few months and projecting it over entire years is a method of tax estimation, not a standard of criminal proof. An estimate that is acceptable administratively does not, on its own, support a figure on which criminal liability depends.
The expert works with the material made available. Filing the documents in an organised way, with an inventory, before the report is finalised, is a strategic obligation of the defence. What evidence is taken into account also depends on e-Factura and SAF-T as evidence.
Each of these points can reduce the loss, sometimes below thresholds that change the legal classification of the act itself. This is where the real value of the party-appointed expert lies: not objecting “on principle”, but recalculating, in the same way recalculation happens in the evidence in tax litigation.
The most important recent change in this area is also, as of July 2026, the defence's main technical tool. Legea nr. 126/2024 inserted into Article 10 of Legea nr. 241/2005 a provision with considerable effects: the loss is determined on the basis of a specialist expert report, and the suspect or defendant has the right to take part in producing it, the text expressly referring to the rules on expert reports in the Code of Criminal Procedure.
The prosecution offices argued that the expert report was merely an optional safeguard and that the loss could be established by any means of evidence, usually the Anti-Fraud inspector's findings report. The High Court of Cassation and Justice (ÎCCJ) rejected that reading. By Decision no. 430 of 15 December 2025, given by the panel for resolving points of law in criminal matters and published in the Official Gazette no. 149 of 26 February 2026, the ÎCCJ held that failing to draw up the specialist expert report renders the document referring the case to the court irregular, which leads to the case being sent back to the prosecutor. The decision has been binding since publication, under Article 477(3) the Code of Criminal Procedure.
The practical consequence is structural: the expert report stops being an optional means of evidence and becomes a condition for the lawfulness of the indictment. For the party-appointed expert, this opens up two distinct lines of work.
If the loss was established only through a findings report, without a specialist expert report, the indictment is vulnerable at the preliminary chamber. The expert documents this gap technically, and the lawyer uses it procedurally.
If the expert report was produced, but in breach of the right to take part, with incomplete objectives or with errors of method, it can be challenged on the merits and completed by a supplementary report or overturned by a new expert report.
NOTE: As of the time of writing, the provision on the mandatory expert report is under publicly declared pressure to be amended: in March 2026, more than a hundred prosecutors specialising in economic crime called for the requirement to be dropped, citing the cost, the length of proceedings and the risk of cases becoming time-barred (prescripție).
As at 18 July 2026, the text remains in force, and ÎCCJ Decision no. 430/2025 is binding; no subsequent amendment to Article 10 of Legea nr. 241/2005 has been adopted. As this is an active legislative subject, the exact wording is worth checking again before taking any step.
The distinction is essential and often confused. The findings report (Article 172 et seq. the Code of Criminal Procedure) is a means of evidence produced, on an urgent basis, by a specialist who usually operates within the criminal investigation body or the tax authority, where there is a risk that evidence may disappear or an urgent need to clarify certain facts. It is useful, but it carries a different evidential value from an expert report: it does not come with the same guarantees of an adversarial process.
A judicial expert report, by contrast, is ordered by a reasoned order, with set objectives, with an expert appointed, and with the parties' right to take part, to recommend an expert and to raise observations. The law expressly recognises the relationship between the two: once a findings report is complete, where the judicial body considers it necessary or where the conclusions are disputed, an expert report is ordered. In other words, a disputed findings report calls for an expert report, it does not replace one.
In tax evasion matters, after ÎCCJ Decision no. 430/2025, a findings report by the Anti-Fraud authority or by a tax inspector does not stand in for the specialist expert report when establishing the loss. The party-appointed expert's role often starts exactly here: showing, technically, why the findings report does not meet the required standard.
The general rules on expert reports in criminal proceedings (Articles 172 to 181 the Code of Criminal Procedure) build a set of rights that the defence too rarely uses to their full potential.
The request for an expert report is made in writing and states the facts and the objectives. The party has the right to propose its own objectives. An expert report whose objectives are set exclusively by the prosecution will answer the prosecution's questions.
The parties and the main procedural subjects can ask for an expert they recommend to take part in producing the expert report. Not a “defence expert” in the sense of bias, but the specialist who makes sure the methodology is correct.
The right to be notified that an expert report has been ordered and to take part in it is expressly provided, in tax evasion cases, by Article 10 of Legea nr. 241/2005. Failure to notify affects the lawfulness of the report.
When an expert report is incomplete, a supplementary report is ordered from the same expert. When the conclusions are unclear or contradictory, a new expert report is ordered, the tool through which the defence can overturn a wrong conclusion. A counter tax-expert report deserves separate treatment.
The preliminary chamber (Articles 342 to 348 the Code of Criminal Procedure) checks the court's jurisdiction and the lawfulness of the referral and of how the evidence was gathered. This is the stage at which unlawfully obtained evidence can be excluded (Article 102 the Code of Criminal Procedure). The party-appointed expert prepares the technical substance of the applications the lawyer makes.
After ÎCCJ Decision no. 430/2025, the absence of the specialist expert report leads to the case being sent back to the prosecutor.
A report produced without notifying the parties and giving them a genuine opportunity to take part can be challenged.
A tax expert report produced without the specialist competence the subject matter of the case requires is vulnerable.
Or were they framed so as to lead to a predetermined conclusion? Whatever gets past the preliminary chamber will carry weight at trial, which is why checking the lawfulness of the expert report is among the first steps to take, alongside the analysis of the criminal investigation in tax evasion cases.
The lawyer works on the legal classification, on nullities, on the lawfulness of the evidence, on procedural strategy and on the closing argument. The expert works on methodology, on the tax base, on recalculating the loss, on the technical objectives and on the observations to the official expert report. The lawyer turns the technical conclusion into a legal argument; the expert does not plead, the lawyer does not calculate. We develop the coordination between the two roles, who steps in, when and with what, in the lawyers' guide to integrating the tax expert.
NOTE: The expert establishes figures and methods, not guilt. An expert who “concludes” that the defendant acted with intent to evade tax obligations goes beyond their remit and is practising law, not expert analysis; the subjective element of the offence falls within the exclusive competence of the court. A report that slides into establishing guilt does not help the defence, it exposes it. And the presumption of innocence (Article 4 the Code of Criminal Procedure) remains the rule: the burden of proof lies with the prosecution, not the defendant, until any conviction becomes final.
Current legislation builds a scale of grounds for non-punishment and for reduced sentences that are conditional on making good the loss, and the price of that step rises as the case moves forward. The decision to pay looks, at first sight, like simple arithmetic. It is not. To pay is to accept the figure. If the loss is inflated through late-payment charges, through extrapolation or through double accounting, payment locks in a wrong sum and can, at the same time, close off the tax appeal.
There is only one correct order: first you check the figure, then you decide whether and how much to pay. The party-appointed expert's role is twofold: recalculating the loss to establish the real amount, and quantifying the difference between the prosecution's claim and the correct base. Making good the loss on the basis of an unchecked figure is, very often, an irreversible overpayment. We deal with the actual mechanism of the grounds for non-punishment in the article dedicated to making good the loss.
No. It is usable evidence, but it does not carry the weight of an expert report and does not bind the court. After ÎCCJ Decision no. 430/2025, the loss must be determined by a specialist expert report; failing to draw one up renders the indictment irregular and leads to the case being sent back to the prosecutor. A disputed findings report itself opens the way to an expert report.
The official expert is appointed by the judicial body and draws up the report. The party-recommended expert (Article 173 the Code of Criminal Procedure) is the specialist proposed by the suspect, the defendant or the party liable in civil damages, who takes part in producing the expert report, watches over the correctness of the method and raises observations. They are not pursuing a particular conclusion, but making sure the work is technically correct.
No, and they must not try to. The expert rules on the figures, the methodology and the tax base. Guilt, that is, the existence of intent to evade, is a legal question within the court's competence. The presumption of innocence remains the rule, and an expert who rules on guilt goes beyond their remit, making their conclusion open to challenge.
Yes, precisely then. Before you pay, you need to know how much you really owe. An expert who recalculates the loss can show that the real amount is significantly lower than the prosecution's claim; making good the loss on the correct figure can make the difference between a fair payment and a final, irreversible overpayment.
Informative material, updated on 18 July 2026. It does not constitute legal or tax advice; individual situations must be assessed on their own facts. Every person is presumed innocent until the conviction becomes final.
If the file contains a calculation that needs checking, the other analyses are grouped under the party-appointed tax expert. For the technical role in the defence, see tax expert evidence.
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.