Criminal seizure vs ANAF seizure and garnishment: how to unblock your accounts and assets when you are caught between a criminal case and tax enforcement

1. The legal framework: two “worlds” that can both freeze your assets

1.1. Criminal precautionary measures (criminal seizure)

In criminal law, precautionary measures are primarily regulated by Articles 249–254 CPC, as amended over time, and are complemented by the case-law of the Constitutional Court of Romania (CCR) and the High Court of Cassation and Justice (ÎCCJ). These measures include seizure of movable and immovable property, garnishment of bank accounts and the freezing of other assets that may be subject to confiscation or are needed to secure compensation of the victim and court costs.

In essence, a criminal seizure has several core features:

• it is ordered by a judicial authority – prosecutor, judge of rights and freedoms, preliminary chamber judge or trial court, depending on the procedural stage;
• its purposes are to ensure special or extended confiscation, to secure the civil claim (damage) and to guarantee the payment of court costs;
• it can be ordered over assets belonging to the suspect/defendant, but also over assets belonging to third parties, if they may be subject to confiscation or used to secure compensation;
• it is temporary, but can last throughout the criminal investigation, the trial and, in some situations, until enforcement of the judgment is clarified.

The Constitutional Court has repeatedly emphasised that criminal precautionary measures must be proportionate and properly reasoned, taking into account both the need to secure damage recovery and the property rights of the persons concerned. The High Court has also clarified, in several decisions, that seizure should not exceed what is reasonably correlated with the amount of alleged damage.

In practice, a criminal seizure may target:

• bank accounts (by way of criminal garnishment);
• movable property (cars, equipment, stocks);
• immovable property (apartments, land, commercial premises);
• shares, social parts and other financial instruments.

The relationship between seizure and confiscation is analysed in detail in the article Special and extended confiscation in economic criminal cases , where we explain how a provisional measure (seizure) can ultimately lead to permanent loss of assets.

1.2. Tax precautionary measures, ANAF seizure and garnishment

On the tax side, precautionary measures are regulated mainly in Chapter VI (Articles 213–214) of the Fiscal Procedure Code, supplemented by orders of the President of ANAF and internal procedures regarding the imposition of seizure and garnishment. The updated text of the Code can be consulted on the ANAF website or on the Portal Legislativ .

According to Article 213 FPC, tax precautionary measures (garnishment and seizure) are imposed by the competent tax authority when there is a risk that the debtor may avoid payment, hide or dissipate assets, thereby jeopardising collection of the tax claim.

The main tools are:

• precautionary seizure over movable and immovable property (usually accompanied by registration in the land book or in the Electronic Archive of Secured Transactions);
• precautionary garnishment over amounts owed to the debtor by third parties and over bank balances (these may later become enforcement measures).

After the enforcement title is issued and legal time limits are met, ANAF can move to forced tax execution, regulated in Title VIII of the Fiscal Procedure Code, including through garnishment of bank accounts (Article 236 FPC) .

The mechanisms of garnishment and tax enforcement are analysed in detail in the article Bank account garnishment and tax enforcement , where you will also find information on deadlines, challenges and possibilities to suspend enforcement.

2. Key differences between criminal seizure and ANAF seizure/garnishment

2.1. Purpose and legal basis

In criminal law, seizure serves a dual purpose: it secures both possible confiscation (special or extended) and the compensation of the victim (including the State) and court costs. The main legal basis is Article 249 CPC, supplemented by other provisions on confiscation and civil liability in criminal proceedings.

In tax law, ANAF seizure and garnishment are aimed at securing and collecting tax claims. The Fiscal Procedure Code is the general procedure for administering tax claims, and precautionary measures are justified by the risk of non-payment or asset dissipation.

2.2. Who orders the measures and on what grounds

• Criminal seizure is ordered by a judicial authority, on the basis of indications that an offence has been committed and that the assets may be subject to confiscation or may secure damage compensation. Usually, it starts from an estimated criminal damage in the file.
• ANAF seizure and garnishment are ordered by the tax authority, on the basis of a tax risk and a (established or estimated) tax claim. Internal ANAF procedures and standard forms exist for precautionary measures.

Legal doctrine and case-law have repeatedly emphasised the exceptional nature of precautionary measures and the need for concrete reasoning (not just standard formulas). Courts have quashed both criminal and tax measures where they were disproportionate, such as when they completely paralysed a company for a relatively small or disputed claim.

2.3. Practical effects on assets and ranking of creditors

From a practical point of view, the key question for any entrepreneur is: who has priority when the same asset is covered by both criminal seizure and ANAF measures? The answer depends on the stage of the procedures and the nature of the claim, and, in some cases, the conflict is ultimately settled in court.

In general terms:

• criminal seizure primarily protects the public criminal interest (confiscation and repair of damage caused by an offence);
• ANAF seizure and garnishment protect the tax claim, which may be related to the same facts or to other tax obligations;
• if an asset is sold in an enforcement procedure (tax or civil), courts will look at the ranking of creditors and existing registrations (mortgages, privileges, precautionary measures, garnishments etc.) when distributing the proceeds.

In several decisions, the High Court has held that the mere existence of criminal seizure does not automatically prevent any sale of the asset in other proceedings, but it may influence how the price is distributed and whether the asset remains frozen until the criminal case is resolved.

3. When criminal seizure and ANAF measures can coexist on the same assets

3.1. Typical situation: criminal case for tax evasion + ANAF tax inspection

In many tax evasion, money laundering or EU-funds fraud cases, criminal authorities and ANAF work in parallel:

• ANAF conducts the tax inspection, assesses additional taxes and contributions, issues assessment decisions and may impose precautionary measures, followed by tax enforcement;
• the prosecutor opens a criminal case, establishes a criminal damage (which may or may not coincide with the tax damage) and may order criminal seizure over the same assets.

It is not unusual for the same house, car or bank account to be:

• covered by criminal seizure (for confiscation and securing damage recovery), and
• subject to ANAF seizure and/or garnishment (for securing or enforcing the tax claim).

This dual (sometimes triple) freezing leads, in practice, to severe over-blocking of assets, which can paralyse a business or an individual’s finances. It is therefore essential that your lawyer monitors both files (criminal and tax), correlates the documents and builds an integrated strategy.

3.2. Coordination between tax and criminal authorities

The Fiscal Procedure Code and various cooperation protocols provide for obligations of information-sharing between ANAF and prosecutors, including the exchange of information on precautionary measures and the status of criminal proceedings. In practice, however, coordination is not always perfect, and the taxpayer is the one who suffers from overlapping blocking measures.

In some situations, payment of the tax damage (either in full or under an instalment plan) can have a favourable impact in the criminal case (for example, at sentencing or when considering a waiver or discontinuation of prosecution), but there is no automatic causal link. For a detailed analysis of how classification or waiver of prosecution affects precautionary measures, see the articles Classification of criminal investigation and Waiver of criminal prosecution (Article 318 CPC) .

4. How to challenge criminal seizure and ANAF measures

4.1. Challenging criminal seizure (Articles 250 and 250¹ CPC)

The Code of Criminal Procedure provides two main mechanisms for challenging precautionary measures:

• Article 250 CPC – challenge against measures ordered by the prosecutor;
• Article 250¹ CPC – challenge against measures ordered by the court.

Deadlines are short (usually a few days), and the challenge does not automatically suspend the measure. This is why, as soon as you are informed that a seizure has been imposed, it is crucial to contact a lawyer experienced in economic criminal law to assess:

• whether there are procedural defects (lack of reasoning, disproportionate value compared to the damage, failure to specify the assets, lack of prior hearing etc.);
• whether the seizure is clearly disproportionate (for example, blocking all accounts of a company in relation to a relatively small or contested damage);
• whether certain assets should not have been seized at all (for example, assets belonging to persons unrelated to the case, or assets necessary for basic business activity).

The case-law of the Constitutional Court and the High Court has developed criteria concerning the necessity and proportionality of criminal seizures. For example, courts have held that maintaining a seizure for a very long time without periodic review of its grounds may become unconstitutional.

4.2. Challenging ANAF seizure and garnishment (tax and enforcement)

In the tax sphere, several avenues exist:

• administrative challenge against the acts imposing precautionary measures, under the Fiscal Procedure Code;
• challenge to enforcement when ANAF has already started forced execution (including bank garnishment and seizure of assets);
• request for suspension of enforcement, usually before the administrative-fiscal court, often with a requirement to provide a guarantee (for example a bank guarantee letter).

The Fiscal Procedure Code, supplemented by the Civil Procedure Code, sets out the deadlines, conditions and effects of these actions. In practice, courts have held that the mere existence of criminal seizure does not automatically suspend tax enforcement; concrete procedural steps must be taken by the taxpayer.

For a practical step-by-step guide on challenging enforcement titles, summons and enforcement acts, as well as conditions for suspending enforcement, see the article Bank account garnishment and tax enforcement .

5. How to obtain lifting or limitation of measures: carve-out, payment, classification, court judgment

5.1. Carve-out for salaries, current taxes and business survival

A crucial, but often overlooked, aspect is that not every total blocking of accounts is acceptable. Both in criminal and tax law, there are legal arguments for requesting:

• partial unfreezing of accounts so that the company can pay salaries, current taxes, vital suppliers;
• setting a threshold above which seizure or garnishment applies, leaving a minimum cash flow for current operations;
• directing funds towards controlled repayment of the tax damage, which can also be positively viewed in the criminal case.

Under the Fiscal Procedure Code and ANAF practice, in certain circumstances it is possible to lift or limit precautionary measures when the debtor provides adequate guarantees (for example, a bank guarantee letter) or agrees on an instalment plan. These aspects are detailed in ANAF guidelines and administrative procedures.

In criminal cases, one can argue that completely freezing all accounts of a company for a relatively modest or disputed damage amount, without analysing the impact on employees and business continuity, is disproportionate and infringes property rights and freedom of enterprise. In such cases, you can ask the court to:

• partially lift the seizure (for example, over accounts dedicated to salary payments);
• replace seizure on certain assets with other guarantees (such as a mortgage or bank guarantee);
• limit the seizure to a specific value reasonably linked to the real damage, not to a maximal, unreasoned estimate.

5.2. Lifting seizure after payment, classification or judgment

There are several key moments when lifting or reducing precautionary measures can be requested:

• After payment of the tax damage: if the damage established by ANAF is paid (or fully guaranteed), you can request lifting of tax precautionary measures or their conversion into guarantees for any remaining interest or penalties.
• After classification of the criminal case: the classification order should contain clear provisions on seized assets. As a rule, if confiscation is not ordered, assets should be returned and seizure lifted. Maintaining seizure after classification requires a specific legal basis (for example, to secure separate civil proceedings) and can be challenged.
• After waiver of prosecution: the same questions arise as after classification, depending on the reasoning of the prosecutor’s order and any civil claims.
• After a judgment: if you are acquitted or if the court does not order confiscation of certain seized assets, seizure should be lifted and the assets released. You must then follow up on the actual release, including deregistration of entries from the land book or the Electronic Archive of Secured Transactions.

The articles Classification of criminal investigation , Waiver of criminal prosecution and Reopening of criminal investigation and resumption after classification explore these stages and their impact on precautionary measures.

6. Defence strategies when you are caught between criminal proceedings and ANAF enforcement

6.1. Do not look only at “one file” – think in an integrated way

A frequent mistake is to treat separately:

• the “criminal file” – seen as the lawyer’s problem; and
• the “ANAF file” – seen as the accountant’s or tax consultant’s problem.

In reality, in serious economic cases, everything is interconnected. The way you respond in the tax inspection, draft tax challenges, negotiate instalments and manage ANAF precautionary measures has a direct impact on the criminal case – and vice versa.

An effective strategy involves:

• joint analysis of documents from both the criminal file and the tax file;
• alignment of the criminal damage figure with the tax damage (and identifying any discrepancies);
• review of all precautionary measures (criminal and tax) and identifying those with the best chances to challenge or limit first;
• discussing with your lawyer whether and how voluntary payment of part of the damage, instalments or guarantees can improve your position in the criminal case.

6.2. Prioritising payments and protecting cash-flow

When accounts are frozen and assets are seized, the instinct is to “put out the fire” where the pressure seems highest. Legally and economically, however, you should carefully analyse:

• where the immediate risk lies (for example, imminent sale of a property, total blocking of accounts, loss of banking relationships);
• what criminal implications payment of certain amounts to ANAF may have (it can be seen as an admission of damage or, conversely, as cooperation);
• what instalment or guarantee solutions are available to preserve a minimum liquidity for your business.

In some situations, it may be wiser to:

• first obtain a suspension of tax enforcement from an administrative or judicial court, to temporarily stop garnishment;
• and then negotiate, in parallel, ways to cover the criminal damage, including agreements with the civil party (often the tax authority itself).

6.3. Watch the deadlines for challenges

Both in criminal and tax law, deadlines are short and often run from the date of communication or the date you become aware of the act. For example:

• the challenge against criminal seizure ordered by the prosecutor must be lodged within a few days of notification;
• administrative challenges or challenges to enforcement in tax matters have specific deadlines set out in the Fiscal Procedure Code and Civil Procedure Code.

Missing the deadline can effectively mean being stuck with a precautionary measure that is very hard to remove later. Therefore, you should:

• regularly check your postal mail, e-mail and ANAF’s online system (SPV);
• instruct your accountant and staff to inform you immediately about any communication from ANAF or criminal authorities;
• have a quick communication channel with your lawyer, so you can react in time.

7. Conclusions: how to regain control over your accounts and assets

Criminal seizure and ANAF seizure/garnishment can, within a few days, transform a functioning business into a paralysed one. Even if it feels as if “the State is taking everything”, the legal reality is more nuanced: there are legal tools for challenging, limiting and lifting precautionary measures, both in criminal and in tax law.

The key is not to treat these procedures as two separate universes. Instead:

• work with your lawyer to analyse the whole picture – criminal file, tax inspection, ANAF enforcement, precautionary measures;
• prioritise actions with the strongest immediate impact (blocking of accounts, risk of sale of real estate, risk of business collapse);
• discuss concrete options for carve-out for salaries and taxes, guarantees, instalments, lifting or limiting seizure;
• do not ignore deadlines for challenges and do not postpone consulting a specialised lawyer.

In many situations, a well-thought-out strategy can make the difference between a prolonged, multi-year freeze and a reasonable solution that protects both your liberty and your business.

For a confidential assessment of your situation, you can use the contact details in the Contact – Lawyer Măglaș Alexandru section or on the Criminal law services page.

FAQ – Criminal seizure vs ANAF seizure and garnishment

1. Can ANAF impose garnishment on my bank accounts if there is already criminal seizure on the same amounts?

Yes, in practice the same bank accounts can be frozen both by criminal seizure and by ANAF garnishment, because the two measures have different legal bases (Criminal Procedure Code vs Fiscal Procedure Code) and can coexist. However, this double blocking can be challenged, and courts will examine the proportionality of the combined impact and the ranking of creditors when distributing funds. It is essential to discuss with your lawyer how to structure challenges and whether to request carve-outs for essential payments (salaries, taxes).

2. If I pay the full tax debt to ANAF, will the criminal seizure automatically be lifted?

No, there is no automatic rule. Full payment of the tax debt is a strong argument both before ANAF (for lifting tax precautionary measures) and in the criminal case (at sentencing or when assessing waiver or classification). However, criminal seizure follows its own rules: lifting is ordered by the prosecutor or the court when they find that the conditions for maintaining the measure are no longer met. Payment is important, but not the only factor.

3. What can I do if my company can no longer pay salaries because of seizure and garnishments?

In such situations, you can request partial unfreezing of accounts and limitation of precautionary measures so that the company can pay salaries, social contributions and essential operating expenses. In criminal proceedings, you can ask for limitation or replacement of seizure with guarantees; in tax matters, you can negotiate instalments and guarantees with ANAF. It is crucial to act early, with solid documentation (cash-flow forecasts, contracts, financial statements) and legal representation.

4. Is criminal seizure automatically lifted if I am acquitted?

In principle, if the court acquits you and does not order confiscation of the seized assets, seizure should be lifted and assets returned. In practice, you must carefully check the judgment’s operative part and reasons, possible appeals and then follow up on the actual lifting of measures, including deregistration in the land book and the Electronic Archive of Secured Transactions, where applicable.

5. Can precautionary measures be maintained after a classification order in the criminal case?

Yes, in certain situations precautionary measures can be maintained even after classification, for example when separate civil or tax proceedings are ongoing. However, maintaining seizure requires a specific legal basis and must be adequately justified. If there is no clear reason to keep assets frozen, the person concerned can challenge the continuation of the measure before the competent court.