Intellectual forgery is the offence whereby, at the time an official document is drawn up, a public official inserts untrue information or knowingly omits essential data. The legal basis is Article 321 of the Romanian Criminal Code, and the penalty provided for in the basic form is imprisonment from 1 to 5 years. Attempt is punishable.

Below you will find, in a concise and practical manner, the criteria, usual examples, differences from other forgery offences, frequently asked questions and pragmatic steps for situations where an accusation or suspicion of intellectual forgery appears.

1) What is intellectual forgery? (short legal definition)

The law criminalises the act of falsifying an official document “at the time of its drawing up”, committed by a public official in the exercise of his or her duties, by certifying untrue circumstances or by knowingly omitting to include relevant data/circumstances (Art. 321 Criminal Code). In practice, we are talking about documents such as official reports, certificates, attestations, official registers, inspection notes, administrative letters, etc., in so far as they qualify as official documents.

The legal text focuses on the content of the document at the time it is drawn up: we are not dealing with physically “scribbling” on the document, but with the truthfulness of what is recorded (or intentionally omitted). This focus on the content distinguishes intellectual forgery from material forgery (Art. 320 Criminal Code), where the emphasis is on the physical counterfeiting/alteration of the document.

2) Key elements (conditions) – a useful checklist

Status of public official at the time of drawing up – in the sense of the criminal law.
The document is official – it emanates from an authority or is vested with public authority.
Timing – the act occurs when the document is drawn up (not later, by physical alterations).
Conduct – certifying untrue facts/circumstances or knowingly omitting essential data.
Mental element – intent (direct or indirect); unintentional material errors do not fall within the legal definition.
Capacity to produce legal consequences derives from the nature of the official document; proving an actual damage is not required for the basic offence.

3) Penalty provided by law

Article 321 Criminal Code – in its basic form – provides for imprisonment from 1 to 5 years. Attempt is punishable.

The concrete limits applied in a given case depend on judicial individualisation (seriousness of the act, concrete role, mitigating/aggravating circumstances, concurrence of offences, subsequent conduct, etc.).

4) Differences from other forgery offences (quick orientation)

Intellectual forgery (Art. 321 Criminal Code) – alteration of the truth in the content of an official document at the time it is drawn up, by a public official.
Material forgery in official documents (Art. 320 Criminal Code) – physical counterfeiting/alteration of an official document by writing, signing, additions, physical modifications, etc.; it can be committed by any person.
Forgery in private documents (Art. 322 Criminal Code) – concerns private documents and, in its typical form, also requires their use for the purpose of producing legal consequences.
Use of a forged document (Art. 323 Criminal Code) – using a forged document (official or private), knowing that it is forged, in order to produce legal consequences. It may appear in concurrence with intellectual or material forgery, depending on the situation.

Textual overview table of the differences

Material object:
- Art. 321 – official document (false content);
- Art. 320 – official document (counterfeited/altered);
- Art. 322 – private document;
- Art. 323 – use of a document.
Perpetrator:
- Art. 321 – public official acting in the exercise of his/her duties;
- Arts. 320/322/323 – any person.
Moment:
- Art. 321 – when the document is drawn up;
- Art. 320 – may also be later (alteration);
- Art. 322 – falsification + use;
- Art. 323 – use only.

5) Illustrative examples (generic)

An official report records untrue facts regarding an inspection/finding.
An essential circumstance is intentionally omitted from an official register, changing the real meaning of the situation recorded.
A certificate or attestation is issued, certifying circumstances that do not exist or that differ from reality.
An administrative act of finding exaggerates or distorts the factual situation, knowingly.

These examples are for orientation only. In order to legally classify an act, it is essential to analyse concretely the duties of the official, the nature of the document, the context and the available evidence.

6) What evidence usually matters

The official document allegedly falsified intellectually (its content, signatures, technical notes).
Secondary documents (registers, IT applications, system logs, workflow trails).
Statements of the persons involved: authors, collaborators, recipients.
Expert reports/findings (graphological, technical), which may sometimes be useful, depending on the case.
Corroboration with other official/administrative acts issued in the same period.

7) Material error ≠ intellectual forgery

Not every error found in an official document amounts to intellectual forgery. The law requires intent (“knowingly”) when certifying untrue facts or in the omission. In practice, the difference can be seen from the context: prompt correction afterwards, coherent explanations, the absence of any purpose to distort reality, combined with the rest of the evidence, may indicate a material error – not criminal conduct.

8) Frequently asked questions (FAQ)

Q: Can a person who is not a public official commit intellectual forgery?
A: In the typical form, no. Article 321 requires the status of public official acting in the exercise of his or her duties. For other persons, other offences may be relevant (for example, material forgery, forgery in private documents, use of a forged document), depending on the act and conduct.

Q: Is actual damage required?
A: The basic offence does not require the existence of actual damage. What matters is the untrue content or the intentional omission in an official document capable of producing legal effects.

Q: What if I signed the document without reading it thoroughly?
A: Liability is analysed concretely: role, duties, knowledge, context. Simply signing “blindly” does not automatically exclude liability, but neither does it prove it. The overall evidence and duties matter.

Q: Can both use of a forged document and intellectual forgery be retained together?
A: Yes. If, after being drawn up, the forged document is used to produce legal consequences, knowing it is forged, concurrence with Article 323 Criminal Code (use of a forged document) may exist.

Q: What should I do if I am accused of intellectual forgery?
A: Quickly have the file assessed by a lawyer, organise documents and workflow trails, prepare your defences in time, identify useful evidence (witnesses, documents, expert reports), and clarify the strategy by stages (preliminary chamber, trial at first instance, appeals).

9) Recurrent situations in practice (generic scenarios)

Official reports in which debatable facts are recorded under time pressure; it is important to verify the actual workflow.
IT/analog registers where an essential field is missing or inaccurate; what matters is whether the omission was intentional and changes the legal meaning.
Certificates/attestations issued without complete checks; internal procedures and the issuer’s duties are examined.
Inspection notes with “amplification” of certain facts; corroboration with other documents/evidence may disprove intent.

10) Relationship with other offences (possible concurrences)

Depending on the concrete conduct, intellectual forgery may appear in concurrence with use of a forged document (if the document is subsequently used) or with offences related to duties in office (for example, abuse of office), if the act of distorting the truth is linked to harm to a person’s legitimate interests or to a loss. The distinctions are made case by case, in relation to the factual elements and the legal grounds invoked.

11) Civil side and administrative consequences

In addition to criminal liability, there may be civil claims (compensation for damage) and administrative (disciplinary) consequences under internal regulations/special laws applicable to the institution. An integrated analysis – criminal, civil and administrative – is useful in order to avoid partial solutions that complicate the case.

12) Pragmatic guide: what to do now, step by step

Gather the documents: the allegedly forged act, related documents, IT trails (logs), correspondence.
Write a factual summary (maximum 2 pages) – chronology, who did what, when, and under which internal procedure.
Check the official duties (job description, regulations, delegations) – to clarify the role of each person.
Assess intent: what indications may point to a material error vs. a knowing omission/untruth.
Consult a lawyer: define the line of defence, useful evidence, and the timetable for the preliminary chamber and trial.
Clarify fees by stages (analysis → motions/exceptions → trial on the merits), so that you know from the outset the steps and the costs.

13) Other articles

“Material forgery in official documents” (Art. 320 Criminal Code) – differences and examples.
“The indictment – the act by which the criminal court is seised” – what happens to the case after the criminal investigation.
“How long does a criminal trial last?” – guidance for time expectations.

14) Small doctrinal clarifications (in accessible language)

“Untrue content” means that the document records as real facts/circumstances that did not occur or occurred differently, or intentionally omits essential data. “At the time of drawing up” delimits the moment of the act – if, afterwards, someone intervenes materially on the document (erases, adds, rewrites), the discussion usually shifts to material forgery.

“Public official” includes the categories defined in the criminal law, not only classic civil servants; in practice, the status is assessed based on duties, the way of appointment/employment and the authority exercised.

In judicial practice, the distinctions between intellectual forgery and other types of forgery often involve analysing the concrete material acts: what was written/omitted, when, by whom, with what level of knowledge, in what procedural flow. For this reason, proper legal classification is not made solely from definitions, but from corroborating the evidence.

15) Useful questions to bring to a legal consultation

What exactly was my role in the document drawn up? Is there a job description/delegations that confirm it?
What internal documents existed at the date of issuance? Were the procedures (approval flow, checks, endorsements) respected?
Are there logs or digital traces showing who completed what and when?
To what extent does the act have the potential to produce legal effects (and for whom)?
Were there subsequent corrections? Who made them and under what circumstances?
Which witnesses can clarify how the document was drawn up?

Disclaimer

This material is for information purposes only and does not constitute legal advice for a specific case. For an analysis tailored to your situation, it is necessary to examine the documents and have an individual discussion.

16) Who is a “public official” in the sense of the criminal law (practical guidance)

The status of “public official” in the criminal-law sense does not perfectly overlap with the statuses created by administrative law. The Criminal Code uses its own, broader definition, which includes not only appointed/elected officials, but also other persons who exercise public authority or manage services of public interest under the law.

In practice, the classification is based on: the job description, appointment/pay documents, the legal framework of the position, hierarchical reporting and the actual powers exercised at the time the document was drawn up.

17) What is an “official document” (useful distinctions)

In broad terms, an official document is a document that emanates from a public authority/institution or from an entity invested by law with public authority, or to which the law confers this nature. Examples: inspection reports, findings notes, administrative decisions, certificates, official registers. For other documents, the analysis is carried out on a case-by-case basis – for example, some internal reports may be official if they have legal impact within the institutional circuit, others may not.

18) “Truth” and “knowing omission” – how intent is proven

Intent is the element that distinguishes error from intellectual forgery. It can be inferred from: the content of the document, contradictions between the recorded statements and other contemporary acts, the author’s experience and competence, the internal workflow (who checks, who confirms), the context (pressure, deadlines). Knowing omission presupposes that the author was aware of the data and decided not to record them, thereby affecting the legal meaning of the document.

19) Borderline cases and frequent classification errors

Obvious material errors (e.g. reversing a date) – correctable, without intent; they do not amount to intellectual forgery.
Opinions/assessments in a report: if we remain in the area of professional assessment (and not of factual statements), the distinction must be made carefully; not every wrong assessment means an “untrue fact”.
Pre-completed forms/templates: responsibility for the content lies with the person who completes and signs; merely copying mechanically does not excuse, but may influence the analysis of intent.
Subsequent corrections: prompt rectification may contradict the hypothesis of fraudulent intent.

20) Procedure: where issues of legality are raised

In the preliminary chamber, irregularities concerning the evidence or procedural acts that led to the charge can be raised. At trial on the merits, evidence is taken in an adversarial manner (witnesses, documents, expert reports), and the court assesses the legal elements of the offence, guilt and, where relevant, the civil side.

An effective defence requires a clear distinction between the two levels: legality of the evidence/acts and the soundness of the accusation.

21) Individualisation of the penalty – usual factors

The perpetrator’s concrete role (initiator, participant, formal signatory).
The impact of the act in the legal circuit (did it produce consequences or was it only a preliminary step?).
Absence/existence of damage and the attitude towards repairing it (on the civil side).
Conduct after the act (admission, cooperation, corrections, attempts to restore the truth).
Background and professional context.

22) How to properly document the internal workflow (for defence or compliance)

List internal procedures (manuals, instructions, flow diagrams).
Show who inputs data into the system and who verifies/signs (responsibilities).
Retrieve logs and metadata (user, time, IP, workstation).
Record any departures from the procedure (why they were necessary).
Group documents into thematic files (evidence for the prosecution, evidence for the defence, procedural documents).

23) Additional questions (extended FAQ)

Q: Is a hierarchical superior automatically liable for content signed by subordinates?
A: Not automatically. Criminal liability is personal; the role of each person is analysed: who drafted, who checked, what they reasonably had to/could notice. However, a verification/confirmation signature may entail liability if it conceals or knowingly validates an untrue record.

Q: If the document was never used, can intellectual forgery still exist?
A: Yes. The legal definition focuses on the moment of drawing up and on the nature of the official document; subsequent use falls under use of a forged document. The fact that no actual consequence occurred may influence the sanction, but does not automatically exclude the offence.

Q: Can the accusation change from material forgery to intellectual forgery (or vice versa) during the proceedings?
A: Yes. Depending on how the facts and evidence are clarified, the legal classification may be adjusted. What matters is how the material acts are described: content at drawing up vs. later material alteration.

Q: What is the role of expert evidence?
A: In intellectual forgery, graphological expert reports are less often decisive (we are not dealing with “writing” as such), but technical/IT expert reports can be essential to reconstruct the workflow and to show who input certain statements into the system.

24) For injured persons: what to do if you suspect intellectual forgery

Document the acts you consider untrue (copies, numbers, dates, issuer).
Request written clarifications from the institution (based on the applicable laws).
Gather comparable documents (other official documents from the same period).
Note the effects the act has produced or may produce.
Consult a lawyer to assess the appropriateness of a criminal complaint and any related civil/administrative steps.

25) Preventive conduct (compliance) in institutions

Periodic training on correct completion of registers and official documents.
Two-step verification procedures (drafting + confirmation), with digital traceability.
Error-correction policies: how corrections are made and recorded in the register.
Use of templates and checklists for high-risk documents (official reports, findings notes).
Internal audits on samples, with remediation and feedback.