The inspection has ended. You received the report (procesul-verbal), signed it with objections, and paid what you thought you owed. Then nothing happened. Four months, eight months, a year. You reasonably assumed the matter was closed. One morning the phone rings: you are invited to the economic police “for a few clarifications”. You are not told in what capacity, nor in which file. You are led to believe it is a formality and that you do not need a lawyer.
You are a person in a criminal case, even if no one has told you so yet. I have shown elsewhere how a tax inspection becomes a criminal case. This article picks up exactly where that one leaves off: from the moment the report (procesul-verbal) drawn up under Article 132 of the Tax Procedure Code reached the prosecutor's office.
The prosecutor's office does not receive a “tax evasion file”, but a complaint: the procesul-verbal of the tax authority and the documentation supporting it. The tax authority does not classify the conduct as a criminal offence and does not establish guilt, it flags indicators. The reports drawn up by anti-fraud inspectors also have a dual nature: an instrument that triggers the complaint and a means of evidence.
The practical consequence, often overlooked: a tax finding is not a ruling on the loss. The figure in the report is a working hypothesis of the prosecution, to be reassessed through an expert report and evidence. Whoever treats the figure from ANAF (Romania's national tax administration) as fixed loses the most important ground in the case.
A criminal investigation carried out by a body lacking subject-matter jurisdiction renders the acts absolutely null, an issue raised in the pre-trial chamber (camera preliminară) that can strip a case of its substance.
The general rule, for most tax evasion cases.
Under Law No. 126/2024, the offences under Articles 8, 9 and 9² of Law No. 241/2005 fall under the jurisdiction of the National Anticorruption Directorate (DNA), regardless of the status of the person involved, where the material loss exceeds 10,000,000 lei, irrespective of the number of concurrent offences.
Competent, in the classic sense, when the conduct is committed as an organised criminal group. Under the same law, the jurisdiction of the Directorate for Investigating Organised Crime and Terrorism (DIICOT) was extended to cover Articles 8, 9 and 9² as well, at the same threshold of 10,000,000 lei.
You read that correctly: the same threshold, assigned by the same enactment, to two different specialised structures. The overlap was flagged critically by legal commentators as soon as the law was adopted, the legislature has not corrected it, and the texts offer no explicit criterion for allocating cases between the two structures above the 10 million lei threshold. In practice, this is a real source of jurisdictional disputes, and therefore a line of defence worth checking in every case, all the more so as the sanction is absolute nullity. Thresholds and sentencing limits are covered separately.
Transitional regime: cases with which the prosecutor's offices attached to the county courts, courts of appeal and the High Court of Cassation and Justice (ÎCCJ) had already been seised by 16 May 2024 remain with those structures, regardless of the loss involved.
A criminal investigation almost always begins in rem, in relation to the conduct, not a person. A file exists, evidence is gathered, people are questioned, but no one has yet been accused. At this stage you may be summoned as a witness, and as a witness you are under a duty to tell the truth, on pain of criminal liability.
The key moment is the shift to in personam: when the data and evidence gathered give rise to a reasonable suspicion that a specific person committed the conduct, the prosecutor orders that the criminal investigation continue against that person, who acquires the status of suspect (Article 305 of the Code of Criminal Procedure). Only then are the full rights of the defence activated, including the right to make no statement at all.
From here comes the most underestimated risk in this entire area: a statement given as a witness, under oath, by a person who is in reality the target of the investigation. It stays on file. This is exactly why the first summons, however “informal”, is prepared with a lawyer. Bringing criminal proceedings turns you into a defendant: the accusation is formalised and preventive measures become possible.
The rights that matter, under Article 83 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (also applicable to the suspect, through Article 78): the right to make no statement at all, with the express proviso that refusal carries no adverse consequence for you, but that any statement you do make can be used as evidence against you; the right to be informed of the conduct alleged against you and its legal classification; the right to a lawyer of your choosing, present at hearings and at investigative acts; the right to consult the file, as provided by law; the right to propose evidence, raise objections and submit applications. Access to the file (Article 94) has one important limit: during the criminal investigation, the prosecutor may, for reasoned grounds, restrict access if it would harm the proper conduct of the investigation; once criminal proceedings have been brought, the restriction cannot exceed 10 days. It does not remove the lawyer's right to be present while their client is questioned.
WARNING, the clash between the two procedures. In tax proceedings you are under a legal duty to cooperate; in criminal proceedings, the right not to contribute to your own incrimination applies, as established by the case law of the European Court of Human Rights (Funke, Saunders, Chambaz). Explanatory notes given “administratively”, during the inspection, nonetheless end up in the criminal file as documentary evidence, and cannot be withdrawn simply because you have since become a suspect. This is why the criminal defence begins at the inspection stage, not at the prosecutor's office.
It will be read, two years from now, by a judge who does not know you.
Witness, suspect or defendant. Request it in writing, by way of a summons.
Regardless of your procedural status. It is not a sign of guilt, it is a professional standard.
Not from memory: a contradiction between two statements will be exploited.
Precisely, without speculating about other people's intentions and without generous elaboration.
If it is true. An invented approximation is not.
Before you sign, and ask for your objections to be recorded. A nuance left out becomes, on file, a statement you never made.
Home and computer searches. Both are ordered by the judge for rights and liberties (judecătorul de drepturi și libertăți), at the prosecutor's request; the warrant for a computer search (Article 168 of the Code of Criminal Procedure) states the period, the purpose and the computer system targeted. What you can lawfully ask for: to be shown the warrant and to read it; for your lawyer to be called; to be present during the search; for your objections and everything seized to be recorded; copies of the data. What you must never do: physically resist, delete anything, or “tidy up” documents during the search. These acts stop nothing and manufacture exactly the evidence of intent the prosecution is looking for. The limits of the warrant and the integrity of the data are challenged later, in the pre-trial chamber.
Preventive measures. The law provides for detention, judicial control, judicial control on bail, house arrest and pre-trial detention. Any measure must be necessary and proportionate to the seriousness of the accusation. In economic cases, the practical rule is judicial control: obligations not to leave the country, to report periodically, sometimes a ban on acting as a company director. House arrest and pre-trial detention remain exceptions, typically reserved for a concrete risk of absconding, destroying evidence or influencing witnesses, or for accusations involving an organised criminal group. Worth remembering: in tax evasion cases, a large figure in the indictment does not, by itself, lead to detention. Conduct during the proceedings weighs more heavily than the figure.
Precautionary measures (măsuri asigurătorii). Article 11 of Law No. 241/2005 is short and blunt: where an offence under this law has been committed, taking precautionary measures is mandatory. The seizure (sechestru asigurător) over bank accounts, real property or shareholdings is not a penalty and does not presuppose proven guilt, it is a preservation measure, frequently ordered within the first few days. Its effect on a live business is, however, immediate and sometimes irreversible.
Expert evidence. The loss must be proved, not simply adopted. The prosecutor usually orders a forensic accounting or tax expert report, and you have the right to request that an expert of your own choosing take part in preparing it (Article 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure), the party-appointed expert. This is one of the most effective and least used levers in tax cases: objections to the terms of reference of the expert report must be raised when those terms are set, not after the report has been filed. Terms of reference that are wrongly framed produce a report that correctly answers the wrong question.
This is the most valuable, and least well known, piece of information in this article. Law No. 126/2024 built a sliding scale for covering the loss, for losses that do not exceed the equivalent of EUR 1,000,000.
The loss increased by 15%, plus interest and penalties, the conduct is not punished, and the competent authorities no longer refer the matter to the criminal investigation bodies.
The loss increased by 25%, plus interest and penalties, the conduct is not punished.
Until the first-instance judgment: an increase of 50%.
Until the final judgment: an increase of 100%.
Regardless of the threshold, covering the loss in full before the first hearing date reduces the sentencing limits by half; after that, until the final judgment, by a third. In other words: the criminal complaint does not close the door, the cost rises, but the option remains. Paying, however, means accepting the amount set by the prosecution, which is why the decision is taken only after assessing how solid the findings are, together with your lawyer and tax adviser. The exact conditions are set out in detail in the article on covering the loss.
Discontinuance (clasare), where the conduct did not occur, is not defined as a criminal offence, an essential element is missing (typically: intent), or a ground for non-punishment applies. Waiver of the criminal investigation, subject to confirmation by the pre-trial chamber judge; Article 318(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure allows it for offences punishable by a fine or by imprisonment of up to 7 years, and whether it applies to Article 9 of Law No. 241/2005 remains debatable: the 10 year maximum excludes it, but Law No. 126/2024 introduced a fine as an alternative penalty, a question that has not been settled and is worth raising wherever it may help. Referral for trial, by way of an indictment (rechizitoriu), checked for lawfulness and merit by the senior prosecutor.
The pre-trial chamber. After the indictment, the case does not go straight to trial. The pre-trial chamber judge examines, in a separate procedure, the jurisdiction and lawfulness of the referral to the court, and the lawfulness of how the evidence was gathered and of the investigative acts performed. This is where, as a rule, and only here, you must seek the exclusion of unlawfully gathered evidence: searches that exceeded the terms of the warrant, computer data without integrity safeguards, acts carried out by a body lacking subject-matter jurisdiction, statements taken in breach of the right to a defence. The evidence considered is limited to proving that the evidence gathered during the investigation was unlawful or unfair, not to the merits of the accusation. It is the point in the whole process with the highest potential return, and the one most often treated superficially.
One essential, up to date reference point: by Decision No. 430/2025 (Official Gazette No. 149 of 26 February 2026), the High Court held that the failure to prepare the specialist expert report renders the act referring the case to the court irregular, which results in the case being sent back to the prosecutor. An indictment that simply adopts the figure from the inspection report, without the expert report required by Article 10 of the law, is vulnerable precisely at this stage.
How long does it actually take? Honestly: years. An average tax case commonly spends 1 to 3 years in the criminal investigation stage, on top of which come the pre-trial chamber and trial across two levels of jurisdiction. And Law No. 126/2024 changed how the limitation period (prescripție) is calculated: the period now runs from the date the tax authority or the criminal investigation body was notified, but no later than ten years from the date the conduct was committed. The idea that “it will time-bar anyway” is no longer a strategy.
Not your business partner, not your accountant, not your employees. You risk additional charges.
No “tidying up”, no deleting, no reconstructing.
And the grounds for the summons.
Not after.
With documents, and hand it to your lawyer, not to the investigating body.
The amount being discussed, the period, the people involved, the assets that could be seized.
If the loss is under EUR 1,000,000, work out the cost of paying it increased by 25% and compare it with the real risk of the trial.
Your position in the tax appeal and your position in the criminal case must never contradict each other.
Nothing that follows the complaint is predetermined: the presumption of innocence is not a polite formula, and a tax finding is not a conviction. But criminal proceedings have short deadlines and long consequences, and the case is won by what you do in the first few weeks, not by what you will explain at the end.
Yes. Being a witness obliges you to tell the truth, but it does not protect you if the investigation is, in reality, targeting you. If the questions concern your own conduct, what you decided, what you signed, why, a shift to suspect status is possible, and the statement stays on file and can be used later.
That the conduct is being investigated, not a specific person, the existence of an in rem file does not mean you are accused. You become a suspect only once the prosecutor orders that the investigation continue against you, on the basis of a reasonable suspicion (Article 305 of the Code of Criminal Procedure). From that moment you have the right to make no statement, the right to a lawyer and, as provided by law, access to the file.
It depends on the amount and the stage of the proceedings. For losses of up to EUR 1,000,000, paying the loss in full during the criminal investigation, increased by 25%, plus interest and penalties, results in non-punishment. Later, the percentage rises to 50% (until the first-instance judgment) and to 100% (on appeal). Paying, however, means accepting the amount calculated by the prosecution, and the decision is made after the evidence has been assessed.
Legally, yes: Article 9 of Law No. 241/2005 provides for a maximum of 10 years, above the 5 year threshold required for pre-trial detention. In practice, however, in economic cases the rule is judicial control, and deprivation of liberty remains the exception, reserved for a concrete risk of absconding, destroying evidence or influencing witnesses, or for accusations involving an organised criminal group. The amount of the loss, by itself, does not determine whether you are detained.
Informative material, updated on 18 July 2026. It does not constitute legal advice; individual situations must be assessed on their own facts. The presumption of innocence applies until a final judgment.
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 tax evasion 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.