Called in for questioning as a suspect after an ANAF tax audit: what to do in the first 7 days as a company director

For a company director summoned as an ANAF suspect, the pressure is double: on the one hand, the tax assessment with large amounts, interest and penalties; on the other hand, the criminal risk (prison sentence, confiscations, seizure of bank accounts and assets). The first 7 days after you receive the summons as suspect are crucial for how your case will look over the next years.

In this article I address primarily company directors, entrepreneurs and individuals involved in economic criminal files started from ANAF controls, and explain in clear language:

• how a tax inspection / verification of the tax situation is connected to the criminal complaint filed with the prosecution authorities;
• which are the typical situations where an ANAF audit turns into a criminal case (tax evasion, VAT, fake invoices, transactions with high-risk companies etc.);
• what the status of suspect means in practice and what rights you have during the criminal investigation phase;
• how to build a coordinated tax + criminal defence strategy (challenging the assessment decision vs. defending yourself in the criminal case);
• what you should do, step by step, in the first 7 days after being called in for questioning as a suspect after an ANAF control.

For a broader overview of the tax side, you can also read the Romanian article on the blog:
Controlul fiscal ANAF: ce verifică inspectorii, care sunt drepturile tale și cum te pregătești.

1. From ANAF control to criminal file: how you end up being a suspect

1.1. Tax inspection, verification of the tax situation and the duty to notify the prosecution

The classic tax control (tax inspection) is regulated in the Romanian Tax Procedure Code, adopted by
Law no. 207/2015. Title VI of this Code sets out the rules on tax inspection, antifraud control and verification of the personal tax situation.

During the inspection, ANAF checks both the form (whether documents exist and are properly drawn up) and the substance (whether transactions are real, have economic substance and do not hide schemes meant to circumvent the law). If inspectors find indications that certain facts go beyond “simple tax irregularities” and may fall within the scope of criminal offences (for example tax evasion, use of fake invoices, unjustified VAT refunds), they have a legal duty to notify the criminal prosecution authorities, according to the provisions of the Tax Procedure Code regarding the notification of criminal bodies.

The tax inspection usually ends with:

• a tax inspection report, describing the factual and legal findings;
• an assessment decision (or a decision of non-modification), setting the additional amounts payable;
• sometimes, a criminal notification report sent to the Prosecutor’s Office (or to DNA/DIICOT, as the case may be) if the facts are assessed as potential criminal offences.

Many of these stages are explained in more detail in the Romanian article:
Contestarea deciziilor de impunere și a altor acte ANAF: strategii de apărare înainte de a ajunge în instanță.

1.2. Typical situations where an ANAF audit turns into a criminal tax evasion case

The most frequent situations where a control ANAF s-a transformat în dosar penal (“ANAF control turned into a criminal case”) are:

• Classic tax evasion – failure to record income, hiding the tax base, recording expenses that are not based on real transactions, destroying or tampering with accounting documents etc., as described in
  Law no. 241/2005 on preventing and combating tax evasion.
• VAT and unjustified VAT refunds – requesting VAT refunds for fictitious or artificially constructed transactions, mainly under Articles 8 and 9 of Law no. 241/2005, especially in chains of transactions involving “ghost companies”.
• Use of fake/fictitious invoices – recording expenses based on invoices issued by companies with non-compliant tax behaviour or non-existent in reality.
• Transactions with high-risk companies – suppliers with no employees, no real premises, no technical capacity, used to create the appearance of lawful transactions.
• Verification of the personal tax situation – major discrepancies between declared income and displayed wealth/expenditure (property, cars, bank accounts), which may be interpreted as undeclared income connected to evasion schemes.

ANAF has even published an information brochure about the amendments to Law no. 241/2005 brought by
Law no. 126/2024, where the new forms of tax evasion and prejudice thresholds are detailed, as well as rules on non-punishment in case of full coverage of the prejudice.

1.3. What “criminal case for tax evasion after an ANAF control” means in practice

Procedurally, things usually unfold as follows:

• inspectors finalise the control and draft a report describing the facts considered suspicious;
• the report and the relevant documents are sent to the Prosecutor’s Office, where a criminal file in rem is opened (the offence is investigated without specific suspects yet);
• the prosecutor typically uses the inspection report and the assessment decision as a starting point, requesting additional documents (bank statements, contracts, accounting reports);
• after a period (months, sometimes years), a summons is issued: the company director (and, possibly, other persons) are called in for questioning as suspects after the ANAF control.

From this moment on, you are no longer just a “taxpayer” in a dispute with ANAF, but a person with concrete criminal rights and risks, governed by the Code of Criminal Procedure.

2. The status of suspect after an ANAF audit: what it means in legal terms

2.1. From “in rem” to “in personam”: when your name appears on the summons

The Romanian Code of Criminal Procedure, adopted by
Law no. 135/2010, distinguishes between:

• criminal investigation in rem – the authorities investigate the offence (“tax evasion”, “fraud”, “abuse of company credit” etc.) without identifying a specific person;
• criminal investigation in personam – the moment when the prosecutor considers that there are reasonable indications that a given person committed the offence and orders the continuation of the investigation against that person, granting him/her the status of suspect.

When you receive a summons explicitly stating that you are a “suspect”, the file has moved to the in personam stage. At this stage, you will be informed about:

• the provisional legal classification (for example, Article 9 paragraph (1) letter c) of Law no. 241/2005 or other related offences from the Criminal Code);
• the concrete facts retained (timeframe, modus operandi, amounts allegedly prejudiced);
• your procedural rights, including the right to remain silent and the right to a lawyer.

2.2. The rights of a company director summoned as an ANAF suspect

When you are questioned as a suspect, the Code of Criminal Procedure grants you, among others, the right:

• to be informed, in a language you understand, about the offence for which you are investigated and its legal classification;
• to have access to a lawyer of your choice or one appointed ex officio;
• not to make any statement and not to incriminate yourself;
• to consult the file (under the conditions and within the limits provided by law) and to propose evidence in your defence;
• to submit motions and complaints, including against precautionary measures (seizure, criminal attachment of bank accounts).

These rights derive from the provisions on the status of suspect and defendant in the Code of Criminal Procedure and have been further developed in many decisions of the High Court of Cassation and Justice and of the Constitutional Court regarding the right to defence and the right to a fair trial.

2.3. ANAF documents as evidence in the criminal file and vice versa

In economic criminal cases started from tax inspections, the inspection report, the assessment decision and their annexes become, in practice, the “skeleton” of the criminal file. However, they are not the “absolute truth”:

• in the criminal file, the judge is not bound by ANAF’s conclusions; the court may order accounting and tax expert reports, hear witnesses and order additional documents from third parties in order to verify the actual transactions;
• on the tax side, a criminal judgment of acquittal or of terminating the criminal proceedings based on the absence of the offence may significantly influence your strategy when challenging the assessment decision before the administrative courts;
• in tax evasion matters, the principle of ne bis in idem (no one should be punished twice for the same facts) plays an important role; the case-law of the ECtHR and CJEU and the legal literature discuss in detail the cumulative use of tax and criminal proceedings for the same prejudice.

For a more in-depth analysis of confiscations and the impact of criminal proceedings on your assets, see the Romanian article:
Confiscarea specială și confiscarea extinsă în dosarele economice: cum îți protejezi bunurile și conturile.

3. The first 7 days after you are called in for questioning as a suspect after an ANAF control

The moment you receive the summons, the clock starts ticking against you. The next 7 days should be used strategically, not to “wait and see what happens”.

3.1. Day 0: read the summons carefully and do not go alone

• Note the date and time of the hearing, the authority (Prosecutor’s Office, DNA, DIICOT) and the position of the person who summons you (prosecutor or criminal investigation officer).
• Check whether you are summoned as a suspect or in another capacity (witness, legal representative of the company etc.).
• Check whether the summons indicates, at least in generic terms, the legal classification (article of law) and the targeted period.

A common, but wrong reflex is: “I will go there quickly and explain everything, so they see I am not guilty”. The problem is that a statement made “on the fly”, without prior analysis, will remain in the file, may be audio/video recorded and will be used later against you if it is incomplete or inconsistent.

This is why, in 99% of cases, it is not a good idea to go alone to the hearing, without a lawyer and without having gone through the file or at least the tax documents on which the notification is based.

3.2. Days 1–2: contact a lawyer for ANAF-related criminal cases and collect all documents

In the first 48 hours you should:

• find a lawyer for ANAF-related criminal cases (avocat dosar penal ANAF), meaning a lawyer with experience both in economic criminal cases (tax evasion, money laundering, embezzlement) and in tax litigation;
• provide the lawyer with:
  • the ANAF tax inspection report and annexes;
  • the assessment decision(s) and proof of service;
  • all correspondence with ANAF (explanatory notes, written submissions, objections);
  • any decisions on administrative appeals or court actions already filed;
  • relevant accounting documents (trial balances, ledgers, contracts, invoices, bank statements).
• clarify with your lawyer whether there are already:
  • administrative appeals filed against the ANAF decisions;
  • pending cases before the administrative-fiscal courts;
  • precautionary measures (seizures, attachments) ordered either by ANAF or by the prosecutor.

In parallel, it is useful to review the Romanian article on garnishments and tax enforcement, to understand what can happen on the collection side:
Poprirea pe conturi și executarea silită fiscală: ce poate face ANAF și ce poți contesta.

3.3. Days 3–5: combined tax + criminal analysis and the decision about payment/appeal

Together with your lawyer, you should:

• identify the differences between ANAF’s position and the economic reality of the transactions;
• assess whether the assessment decision has been or will be challenged within the legal time limit (45 days from service, under the Tax Procedure Code – a critical deadline for your future case);
• discuss the amount of the prejudice retained by ANAF and whether it can be fully or partially covered;
• clarify whether the facts fit into the patterns of offences under Law no. 241/2005 (classic evasion, unjustified VAT refunds, fake invoices etc.).

In its updated form after
Law no. 126/2024 and the ANAF information materials, Article 10 of Law no. 241/2005 provides situations where:

• if the prejudice (up to a certain threshold) is paid in full, increased by a percentage (15% or 25%) plus accessories, within a certain time limit, the offence is not punished or the limits of the penalty are reduced;
• in some conditions, if the payment is made shortly after the control, ANAF may refrain from notifying the criminal authorities, and if the file is already at the criminal investigation stage, the case may end through termination due to non-punishment.

Beware: these mechanisms are technical and depend on thresholds (for example, up to the equivalent of 1,000,000 EUR), strict deadlines (such as 30 days after the control is finalised or before the first court hearing) and cumulative conditions. Do not decide to pay or not to pay solely based on a brochure or a news article – discuss the specifics with your lawyer.

3.4. Days 6–7: strategy for the hearing – statement or silence?

Before the hearing, you and your lawyer should decide:

• whether it is appropriate to give a detailed statement or to exercise your right to remain silent until you see the full evidence;
• which are the key points you want to explain (business structure, VAT flows, your role as company director, how you worked with “high-risk” suppliers);
• what documents or accounting explanations you can rely on to show that the transactions have economic substance (contracts, transport documents, proof of services actually rendered, business correspondence);
• how you respond to ANAF’s conclusions: what you accept as correct, what you challenge and why.

The idea is not to “admit everything” or “deny everything”, but to build a coherent position that can be defended both in the tax procedure and in the criminal case. Any statement you give now will later be compared with subsequent statements, with documents and with the forensic expert report.

4. Why going to the hearing alone is almost always a bad idea

4.1. The risk of incomplete or contradictory statements

Many company directors start from the assumption: “If I explain everything, they will understand I am not guilty”. In reality:

• the psychological pressure of a criminal hearing, persistent questioning and technical tax/accounting details make it easy to make mistakes, forget important aspects or contradict yourself;
• a “confused” statement can later be interpreted as an attempt to evade questions or to hide the truth;
• the instinct to minimise your own role (“I don’t know, the accountant handled it”) can raise other issues (e.g. negligence as director or the image of a “dummy director”).

4.2. Pressure to “promise” things on the spot

In some situations, the criminal authorities insist on covering the prejudice. The problem is that:

• it is not the prosecutor’s or the police officer’s role to produce a complete tax calculation; if you promise “I will pay everything” without knowing precisely what is correct, you may end up paying questionable amounts;
• there may be a significant difference between the real prejudice and what ANAF assessed, which can only be clarified through expert evidence or a tax dispute;
• a purely verbal commitment does not have the same value as a documented payment plan (rescheduling, guarantees etc.).

4.3. Prepared statement vs. informal chat

One of the lawyer’s key roles is to turn a chaotic discussion into a structured statement:

• setting clear limits from the outset (period, targeted transactions, your role in the company);
• avoiding irrelevant or potentially harmful “stories” (e.g. details about other businesses, persons or relationships not related to the file);
• framing your position clearly: what you accept, what you challenge, what you cannot detail without further documentation.

In addition, the lawyer ensures that the questions remain within legal limits and that you are not subjected to impermissible pressure or to informal “promises” with no basis in the legal texts.

5. Combined tax + criminal strategy: ANAF appeal, payment and criminal defence

5.1. Challenging the assessment decision and the link with the criminal case

The assessment decision issued after the control is normally challenged by way of an administrative appeal within 45 days from service, under the Tax Procedure Code. If you miss this deadline, you risk losing both the administrative remedy and access to the administrative-fiscal court.

From the perspective of the criminal file, the appeal serves several purposes:

• it shows that you are not passive and that you contest ANAF’s calculation rather than accepting it blindly;
• it creates a framework where you can argue, at administrative level and later in court, for a reduction of the tax base and accessories;
• it may lead to favourable judgments (full or partial) which you can later rely on as strong arguments in the criminal file.

The High Court of Cassation and Justice has explained, in decisions on points of law and in decisions on second appeals in the interest of the law, that the relationship between tax and criminal proceedings must be assessed carefully, precisely to avoid double punishment or ignoring the outcome of one procedure in the other.

5.2. When it makes sense to pay in full/partially to reduce criminal risks

The decision to pay or not (and how much) should be taken together with your lawyer and, ideally, with the support of an expert accountant. Broadly speaking:

• Full payment under Article 10 of Law no. 241/2005 may lead to non-punishment of the offence or to significant reduction of the penalty limits if all conditions regarding timing, thresholds and percentage increase are met.
• Partial payment does not automatically result in non-punishment, but may count towards the individualisation of the penalty (in case of conviction) and towards the authorities’ perception of your attitude.
• Refusal to pay can be justified where there are strong arguments that the amounts are wrongly calculated or that there is, in fact, no prejudice (for instance, real transactions incorrectly classified from a tax point of view).

Remember that acknowledging a tax prejudice (for the purpose of reducing or rescheduling it) is not the same as automatically admitting the criminal offence. The strategy must be carefully calibrated so that you do not trap yourself through your own statements.

5.3. Using a win in the tax case in the criminal file – and vice versa

If, later on, you manage to obtain in administrative-fiscal litigation:

• full or partial annulment of the assessment decision;
• a considerable reduction of the tax base;
• a finding of factual or legal errors in the ANAF report,

these outcomes can be very powerful arguments before the prosecutor or the criminal court to show that:

• there is no longer a prejudice or it is much smaller than initially assessed;
• the essential element of the offence is missing (for example, “bad-faith assessment” of obligations or “fictitious operations”);
• this was a tax error rather than a criminal fraud.

Conversely, a criminal judgment of acquittal based on the absence of the offence or on the lack of intent can support your arguments in the tax disputes concerning the interpretation of transactions and documents.

5.4. Coordinating with precautionary measures and tax enforcement

In tax evasion criminal cases, the prosecutor may order:

• criminal seizure of assets and bank accounts, under the Code of Criminal Procedure and the Criminal Code;
• precautionary measures overlapping with tax enforcement – for example, seizure of the same assets that ANAF is pursuing through enforcement.

At the same time, ANAF may order:

• garnishment of bank accounts, under the tax enforcement provisions of the Tax Procedure Code;
• tax seizures over movable and immovable assets.

The interaction between criminal seizure and ANAF seizure/garnishment is analysed in detail (in Romanian) in the article:
Sechestru penal vs sechestru și poprire ANAF: cum îți deblochezi conturile și bunurile când ești prins între dosarul penal și executarea fiscală.

6. Common mistakes made by company directors summoned as suspects after an ANAF control

• Ignoring the summons – not showing up for the hearing without a real justification may lead to being brought in on warrant and to an unnecessarily tense relationship with the authorities.
• Going to the hearing without a lawyer – under the pretext “I don’t want to provoke them”, some directors go alone, give chaotic statements and then remain bound by their own words.
• “On the back of an envelope” statements – admitting facts or amounts without prior verification, unrealistic payment promises, careless admissions (“yes, I knew, but I relied on the accountant”).
• Confusing tax and criminal aspects – either everything is treated as a simple tax dispute (“the accountant will fix it”), or everything is dramatised (“if I don’t pay tomorrow, I will be arrested”).
• Missing deadlines – losing the 45-day deadline for the tax appeal or the short deadlines for criminal remedies (complaints against orders, appeals).
• Neglecting helpful evidence – documents that could prove the reality of transactions (contracts, correspondence, transport documents) are left in boxes instead of being organised and used effectively.

7. When and how a lawyer for ANAF-related criminal cases can actually help you

7.1. Before the first hearing as suspect

At the initial stage, a specialised lawyer can:

• quickly analyse the ANAF report, the assessment decision and the summons;
• explain what your realistic criminal risk is (risk of effective imprisonment, criminal fine, suspended sentence etc.);
• decide with you whether it is better to give a statement or to exercise your right to remain silent;
• attend the hearing, intervening when questions become unclear, leading or outside the scope of the case.

7.2. During the criminal investigation and in tax litigation

In the medium and long term, the lawyer coordinates:

• applications for evidence to be taken (accounting and tax expert reports, witness hearings, document requests to third parties);
• challenges against precautionary measures and any preventive measures (judicial control, detention, house arrest);
• the strategy for challenging ANAF decisions by way of administrative appeal and then before the administrative-fiscal courts;
• alignment of your position in the criminal file with your position in the tax cases, so as to avoid contradictions and to make the best use of any favourable outcome in either procedure.

7.3. In negotiations and simplified procedures

In certain situations, it may be in your interest:

• to opt for simplified procedures (simplified trial or plea bargains) in order to obtain a reduced sentence;
• to negotiate, through your lawyer, a realistic payment schedule for the prejudice, possibly combined with tax rescheduling and reduction of accessories;
• to avoid custodial measures through a coherent strategy (including partial payment, admission of some facts, challenging others).

All these options are technical, with different consequences in tax and criminal law, and should not be chosen impulsively or based on an informal chat with the criminal authorities.

FAQ – Common questions if you are called in for questioning as a suspect after an ANAF control

1. I have been called in for questioning as a suspect after an ANAF audit. Do I have to appear on the date in the summons?

As a rule, yes. The summons is not a simple “invitation”, but an official procedural document. If you cannot attend on the date indicated, you should immediately notify the authorities, through your lawyer or in writing, of an objective reason (hospitalisation, travel abroad, other serious reasons) and request a new date. Completely ignoring the summons may lead to being brought in on warrant and will only make your situation worse.

2. Can I go alone to the hearing if the file is “only about ANAF”, not about something more serious?

The fact that the file starts from an ANAF audit does not make it less serious. Tax evasion and economic offences carry high penalties, and statements made as a suspect can be decisive. Even if you feel “you have nothing to hide”, the risk of giving incomplete, contradictory or imprudent statements is high. It is therefore strongly recommended that you be accompanied by a lawyer with experience in ANAF-related criminal cases.

3. Practically, what should I do in the first 7 days after receiving the summons as suspect?

Use the first 7 days to: (1) read the summons carefully and understand the legal classification; (2) contact a lawyer specialised in economic criminal cases and ANAF audits; (3) collect all relevant documents (ANAF report, assessment decision, appeals, accounting records); (4) decide together with your lawyer whether you will give a statement or remain silent at the first hearing; (5) stabilise your tax situation (appeals, payments, rescheduling) to limit negative effects.

4. If I pay the prejudice assessed by ANAF, can I still have a criminal tax evasion case?

It depends on when and under what conditions you pay. After the amendments to Law no. 241/2005, there are situations where full payment of the prejudice, increased by a certain percentage and accessories, within a specific deadline (for example 30 days after the control or before the first court hearing) can lead to non-punishment of the offence or to a reduction of the penalty limits. In some cases, the tax authorities may not even refer the case to the prosecutor. These mechanisms are technical and do not apply automatically, so any decision to pay should only be taken after consulting a lawyer.

5. Can I use the appeal against the ANAF assessment decision as part of my defence in the criminal file?

Yes, the tax appeal and any ensuing administrative-fiscal case are part of your overall defence strategy. If you obtain annulment or a significant reduction of the assessment decision, this may influence both the existence and the amount of the criminal prejudice. However, the arguments and evidence used in the tax proceedings must be aligned with your position in the criminal file to avoid contradictions.

6. What happens if I ignore the summons or refuse to make a statement as a suspect?

Ignoring the summons may lead to being brought in on warrant and to procedural acts being carried out without your position on record. Refusing to make a statement, on the other hand, is your legal right – you have the right to remain silent and cannot be punished for exercising this right. The best strategy is usually to appear at the hearing with your lawyer, decide whether to speak or remain silent depending on the file and ensure that any statement you do make is carefully thought-through and supported by documents.

7. What kind of lawyer should I look for if I have a criminal tax evasion case after an ANAF audit?

You should work with a lawyer experienced both in criminal law and in tax and administrative-fiscal law. Criminal cases for tax evasion after ANAF audits are “two-front” disputes: they unfold in parallel on the tax side (assessment decisions, garnishments, enforcement) and on the criminal side (investigation, possible trial). A lawyer who understands both fronts can coordinate the strategy so you do not undermine your position in one file while trying to improve it in the other.