Plea Agreement vs. Simplified Trial Procedure in Romania: Differences, Advantages and Pitfalls

• The plea agreement, concluded with the prosecutor at the investigation stage, regulated by Articles 478–488 of the Romanian Criminal Procedure Code (current version of the Criminal Procedure Code);
• The simplified trial (trial based on admission of guilt before the court), regulated mainly by Articles 349(2), 374(4), 375 and 396(10) of the Code (Article 375 CPC – procedure in case of admission of guilt).

Both procedures are built around the idea that if the defendant admits to the offence, the trial can be simplified and the defendant may benefit from a reduction of the sentence. In practice, however, the two mechanisms differ significantly, and a wrong choice can have serious consequences for your freedom, criminal record, career and family life.

This article aims to explain, in clear terms for defendants and their families:

• the legal framework of the two procedures;
• how the plea agreement works, step by step;
• how the simplified trial procedure works before the court;
• what are the concrete differences between them;
• what are the real advantages and the pitfalls of each option;
• how a criminal defence lawyer can realistically help you.

Along the way you will find references to provisions of the Romanian Criminal Procedure Code, Constitutional Court decisions, Supreme Court case-law and internal links to other useful materials on maglas.ro, such as the practical guide on the plea agreement, 24-hour police custody or pre-trial detention.

1. Legal framework: where to find the rules

1.1. The plea agreement

The plea agreement is regulated in Title IV, Chapter I of the Romanian Criminal Procedure Code, Articles 478–488 CPC (consolidated text – lege5.ro).

The key provision is Article 480 CPC – “Conditions for concluding the plea agreement”, which currently provides that:

• the agreement may be concluded only for offences punishable by fine or imprisonment of up to 15 years (the initial limit of 7 years was extended by later amendments);
• the agreement may be concluded when the evidence gathered provides sufficient data on the existence of the offence and the defendant’s guilt;
• legal assistance is mandatory when the agreement is concluded (Article 480 CPC – updated version).

Articles 478–479 CPC set out who may initiate the agreement and what its object is (the facts, legal classification, punishment, form of execution, possible security measures and the civil side), while Articles 481–485 regulate the form of the agreement, the referral of the court and the possible solutions (Article 479 CPC – object of the agreement, Article 485 CPC – court’s solutions).

The High Court of Cassation and Justice and the Constitutional Court have clarified the nature and limits of this procedure in several decisions, such as HCCJ Decision no. 25/2014 (which, among others, established that the plea agreement procedure does not apply to minors) and in reports on the practice regarding plea agreements.

1.2. Simplified trial (admission of guilt before the court)

The procedure for trial in case of admission of guilt, often called in practice the “simplified procedure”, is regulated mainly through:

• Article 349(2) CPC – indicates that there is a special procedure in case of admission of guilt;
• Article 374(4) CPC – provides that, where the prosecution does not concern an offence punishable by life imprisonment, the president informs the defendant that they may request the case to be judged solely on the basis of the evidence collected during the investigation and any documents submitted by the parties (Article 374 CPC);
• Article 375 CPC – regulates step by step the procedure in case of admission of guilt, including the conditions under which the court allows or rejects the defendant’s request;
• Article 396(10) CPC – sets out the concrete benefit: reduction of the statutory limits of the punishment by one third in case of imprisonment and one quarter in case of fine, where the trial took place in the conditions of Article 375 CPC (Article 396 CPC – resolving the criminal action).

The Constitutional Court has examined the constitutionality of the simplified procedure in several decisions, such as Decision no. 104/2017, emphasising that the procedure does not apply to offences punishable by life imprisonment. The High Court, in Decision no. 4/2019 (RIL), clarified how Article 396(10) CPC should be applied and characterised it as a procedural norm with substantive effects.

2. What is, concretely, the plea agreement?

In simple terms, the plea agreement is the Romanian version of a plea bargain: an agreement between the prosecutor and the defendant, at the investigation stage, by which the defendant admits the facts and accepts the legal classification, and the prosecutor proposes a punishment (and possibly other measures) that will be subject to the control of a judge.

From a practical perspective:

• there is no full-scale criminal trial with evidence taking before the court;
• the judge checks the legality of the agreement, the soundness of the legal classification and the proportionality of the punishment;
• if the agreement is approved, the case ends by a judgment approving the plea agreement;
• if it is rejected, the case is sent back to the prosecutor’s office for continuation of the investigation or for indictment.

2.1. Who can initiate the agreement and when?

According to Article 478 CPC, the plea agreement is formally concluded by the prosecutor, but the initiative may come from the prosecution, from the defendant or from their lawyer (Title IV – plea agreement).

The agreement can be discussed after the criminal action has been initiated, usually when the prosecutor considers that there is already sufficient evidence to send the case to trial.

2.2. Substantive conditions

The essential conditions are:

• nature of the offence – the agreement may only cover offences punishable by fine or imprisonment of up to 15 years (Article 480(1) CPC);
• sufficient evidence – the evidence must provide sufficient data on the existence of the offence and on the defendant’s guilt;
• full admission of the facts and acceptance of the legal classification;
• mandatory legal assistance – the defendant must be assisted by a lawyer;
• approval of the hierarchically superior prosecutor in relation to the terms of the agreement (Articles 478–479 CPC).

Case-law and legal scholarship have stressed that certain categories of cases cannot be the object of a plea agreement (for example, offences punishable by life imprisonment), and the High Court has held, in Decision no. 25/2014, that the procedure does not apply to juvenile defendants.

2.3. What can be negotiated in the agreement?

Under Articles 479–482 CPC, the agreement must include, among others:

• description of the facts and their legal classification;
• the proposed punishment (type and quantum);
• the form of execution (for example, suspension under supervision);
• any security measures or educational measures (where applicable);
• the way in which the civil side is settled (damages, compensation, restitution);
• data on the defendant (previous convictions, family situation etc.).

In practice, the “negotiation” takes place mainly between the prosecutor and the defence lawyer: they discuss the legal classification, the range of punishment, mitigating and aggravating factors, compensation and the form of execution. The defendant must understand that once they accept the agreement, the room for challenging it later is limited.

2.4. The role of the judge

After the agreement is signed, the prosecutor refers the case to the competent court, in accordance with Article 483 CPC. The judge is not automatically bound by the prosecutor’s proposal:

• the judge checks whether the formal and substantive conditions of the agreement are met;
• verifies whether the legal classification is correct and the punishment is proportionate;
• examines the position of the injured party and the civil aspects;
• may approve the agreement or reject it, pursuant to Article 485 CPC.

If the agreement is rejected, the case is sent back to the prosecutor’s office, and the judge cannot worsen the defendant’s position just because they tried to negotiate. In principle, the admission of guilt made within the agreement is not used as evidence against the defendant in the subsequent ordinary trial (an aspect developed in legal doctrine and in case-law).

2.5. Main advantages of the plea agreement

• Shorter duration – there is no full trial before the court;
• Predictable punishment – the defendant knows, from the moment of signing the agreement, what punishment is proposed and in what form it will be enforced;
• Reduced public exposure – fewer hearings and less media coverage;
• Possibility to negotiate the civil side – damages can be settled in a controlled framework;
• Reduction of the sentencing range – in the current interpretation, the reduction mechanism of Article 396(10) CPC applies also in the context of plea agreements, with the nuances explained by the High Court in Decision no. 4/2019 and in subsequent practice.

2.6. Risks and pitfalls of the plea agreement

• Underestimating chances of acquittal – where the evidence is weak or there are serious procedural flaws (for example, questionable interceptions or searches), the agreement may bury the chance of an acquittal in court;
• Accepting an unnecessarily severe legal classification – the defendant may be persuaded to accept a harsher classification just to obtain a suspended sentence quickly;
• Criminal record and professional consequences – even with a reduced or suspended sentence, the conviction remains, with consequences for one’s career, access to certain professions, gun licences etc.;
• The civil side – sometimes defendants accept an overstated damage, with a major financial impact (especially in economic or corruption cases);
• Inability to turn back – once the agreement is approved, you cannot withdraw your admission of guilt; the appeal focuses mainly on legality and proportionality, not on a complete re-assessment of guilt as in a full trial.

This is why, in articles such as Plea agreement: when, why and how, I insist on the idea that the decision to sign such an agreement must be taken after a serious evaluation of the evidence and the risks.

3. What is the simplified trial based on admission of guilt?

The simplified trial procedure, also called “procedure of admission of guilt”, takes place before the court, after the indictment. Unlike the plea agreement, there is no formal negotiation with the prosecutor but a shortened trial based on the defendant’s admission.

3.1. Conditions for accessing the simplified procedure

According to Articles 374(4) and 375 CPC, a number of essential conditions must be met:

• the criminal action must not concern an offence punishable by life imprisonment – in such cases the procedure is not available (as confirmed by Constitutional Court Decision no. 104/2017);
• the defendant fully admits all the facts retained in the indictment;
• the defendant expressly requests that the trial take place only on the basis of the evidence gathered during the investigation and any documents submitted by the parties;
• as a rule, the request is made at the first hearing at which the summons procedure is lawfully fulfilled and the case is ready for trial;
• the court considers that the evidence from the investigation is sufficient to establish the truth and to deliver a fair judgment – otherwise it may reject the request and order a full trial.

3.2. How does it work in practice?

In broad terms, the steps are:

1. The presiding judge informs the defendant, at the public hearing, of the right to request a simplified trial.
2. The defendant (assisted by counsel) states whether they admit the facts and whether they wish the case to be judged solely on the basis of the investigation file and any documents filed by the parties.
3. The court hears brief observations from the prosecutor, the parties and the injured party.
4. By way of an interlocutory ruling, the court admits or rejects the request for simplified procedure (Article 375 CPC).
5. If it admits the request, the court limits the taking of evidence to documents (where necessary) and then pronounces its judgment on the basis of the existing evidence.

If the court rejects the request, according to Article 375(3) CPC, the case continues under the ordinary procedure, with full evidence being taken (witnesses, expert reports etc.).

3.3. The concrete benefit: reduced sentencing range

Article 396(10) CPC expressly provides that:

“Where the trial was conducted under the conditions of Article 375, the statutory limits of the punishment for the offence committed shall be reduced by one third in the case of imprisonment and by one quarter in the case of a fine.”

This means that it is not the sentence actually applied by the judge that is automatically reduced, but the statutory limits within which the judge individualises the punishment. The effect is especially important for offences with high statutory limits, where the difference between the “normal range” and the “reduced range” is significant.

The High Court stressed, in Decision no. 4/2019, that this is a procedural rule with substantive effects, with consequences on the application of the more lenient criminal law and on transitional situations.

3.4. Can you be acquitted in the simplified procedure?

A frequent myth is that once you admit the facts and request the simplified procedure you are “automatically convicted”. In reality, the court may also order an acquittal where it finds that the conditions of criminal liability are not met (for example, a constitutive element of the offence is missing or a defence applies). The case-law shows that there are numerous judgments of acquittal delivered in the framework of the admission of guilt procedure.

However, admission of the facts considerably narrows your defence strategies, and the court starts from the premise that the offence was committed, focusing on individualising punishment or checking whether any causes excluding liability are present.

3.5. Advantages of the simplified procedure

• Clear benefit of reduced sentencing range (one third for imprisonment, one quarter for fines);
• Shorter trial – some of the evidence taking before the court is avoided;
• Transparency – the procedure takes place in open court, under more extensive judicial control than in the case of a plea agreement;
• Possibility to capitalise on flaws of the investigation – through motions and objections in the preliminary chamber (for example, nullity of the indictment, illegally obtained interceptions), as explained in the article on irregularities of the indictment in the preliminary chamber;
• The court retains a wider margin of appreciation on sentencing and can also order acquittal.

3.6. Risks and limitations

• Waiving evidence in court – you no longer call witnesses or have the expert reports and recordings re-examined in court, which can be risky where the investigation file is questionable;
• Full admission of the facts – you must confirm the “story” in the indictment, even if some details do not match your own perception;
• Not available for offences punishable by life imprisonment – the exclusion is explicit;
• Complex multi-defendant cases – some defendants may request the simplified procedure, others may not; the court may have to manage different procedural regimes within the same case.

4. Plea agreement vs. simplified trial: direct comparison

To better understand the differences, you can look at the two mechanisms as two different “shortcuts”:

5. How to choose between plea agreement and simplified procedure

From a strictly legal standpoint, the right question is not “Which option gives me the biggest reduction?”, but rather “Where do I have the best overall outcome (criminal + civil + impact on my criminal record)?”.

5.1. Situations where a plea agreement may be reasonable

• the offence is clearly proven, with very strong evidence (e.g. in flagrante delicto, video recordings, repeated admissions, credible witnesses);
• a first-time offender with real chances of a suspended sentence;
• cases with heavy media exposure, where avoiding a public trial is important;
• situations where the civil side can be negotiated to an acceptable level (especially in tax fraud, embezzlement or abuse of office cases);
• when the strategy is to “close” the case as quickly as possible in order to limit professional and personal damage, and the risk of conviction in an ordinary trial is very high anyway.

5.2. Situations where the simplified procedure may be preferable

• cases with serious evidentiary issues, but where the defendant is nevertheless willing to admit the facts to benefit from the sentence reduction (e.g. contradictory witness statements, questionable interceptions, searches with procedural flaws);
• cases where you want to use motions and objections in the preliminary chamber (nullity of the indictment, illegally authorised interceptions, unlawfully obtained evidence), but afterwards you are prepared to admit the facts before the court;
• situations where the difference between the normal statutory limits and the reduced ones (under Article 396(10)) is huge and may make the difference between imprisonment and suspension;
• when you want the court, not the prosecutor, to be the main actor in individualising the sentence.

5.3. Situations where neither procedure may be a good idea

• where there are real chances of acquittal (for example, one of the elements of the offence is missing, the statute of limitations has expired, or there is mistaken identity);
• where the accusation relies almost exclusively on fragile statements or “judicialised rumours”;
• in cases with major professional stakes (doctors, lawyers, judges, civil servants), where any conviction – even with suspension – may mean losing one’s career;
• in cases with cross-border elements (European Arrest Warrant, extradition, transfer of proceedings), where admitting guilt in Romania may have consequences in other states – see, for example, the article on the European Arrest Warrant or the one on transfer of sentenced persons.

6. Common practical pitfalls

6.1. “I admit just to get it over with” – without reading the file

Perhaps the most dangerous trap is admitting guilt “by reflex”, without having read the file and without proper discussions with a lawyer. In complex criminal cases (economic crime, corruption, cybercrime), the evidence may be attacked on many fronts, and a plea agreement or simplified procedure accepted too early may close the door on solid defences.

6.2. Ignoring long-term effects

Both the plea agreement and the simplified procedure are often presented as “light” solutions, but they remain conviction procedures in the vast majority of cases. The effects on your criminal record, on your right to hold certain positions, on your ability to travel, as well as on your professional reputation must be analysed concretely.

6.3. The civil side and inflated damage

Especially within a plea agreement, there is a risk of accepting an overstated amount of damage just to “close” the case. Later, this accepted damage may have consequences in other proceedings (e.g. in parallel civil or tax litigation).

6.4. Multi-defendant cases

In cases with several defendants, scenarios can become complicated:

• some defendants conclude plea agreements, others opt for simplified or ordinary trials;
• one defendant’s admission of guilt (in an agreement or in the simplified procedure) may, within certain limits, be used in relation to the others;
• defence strategies are more difficult to coordinate.

In such situations it is essential that each defendant has their own strategy but also a global view of the case.

6.5. Relationship with other procedural mechanisms

Both the plea agreement and the simplified procedure must be seen in the broader context of the criminal process:

• the possibility of case dismissal or waiver of prosecution (see the dedicated articles on dismissal of criminal charges and waiver of prosecution under Article 318 CPC);
• the possibility of reopening the criminal investigation after a dismissal order (Article 335 CPC) – see the article on reopening criminal proceedings;
• complaints against the prosecutor’s solutions (Articles 339–341 CPC) – a key tool when the case is closed by an order; see the guide on complaints against prosecutorial solutions.

7. The role of the defence lawyer

Both the plea agreement and the simplified trial procedure involve decisions with major consequences for your life. A criminal defence lawyer can:

• analyse the evidence in the file and assess real chances of acquittal or reclassification;
• explain in concrete terms what each option means (not only in theory, but in years of imprisonment, deadlines for rehabilitation, impact on the criminal record etc.);
• negotiate the terms of the agreement and the impact on the civil side;
• file motions and objections in the preliminary chamber to exclude illegally obtained evidence (for example, search warrants or telephone interceptions – see more in the dedicated articles on telephone interceptions and searches of homes and business premises);
• represent you in negotiations with the prosecutor and before the court.

For a confidential discussion about your situation, you can use the contact details on the Contact – Măglaș Alexandru Law Office page.

8. Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)

8.1. If I sign a plea agreement, can I still appeal?

Yes. The judgment by which the court approves or rejects the plea agreement may be appealed under Article 488 CPC. However, the appeal does not turn the procedure into a full ordinary trial: evidence is not taken again in full and the debate focuses mainly on legality and proportionality, not on a fresh comprehensive examination of guilt.

8.2. Can I benefit from the simplified procedure if I do not admit all the facts?

No. A core condition of the simplified procedure is full admission of all the facts as described in the indictment. If your admission is only partial or your version fundamentally contradicts the indictment, the court has strong grounds to reject the request and order an ordinary trial.

8.3. What happens if the court rejects the request for a simplified trial?

If the court rejects the request, the case continues under the ordinary procedure, with full evidence being taken (witnesses, experts etc.), in accordance with Article 374(5)–(12) CPC. The initial admission remains recorded, but the court will decide on the basis of all the evidence. The defence strategy must be recalibrated together with your lawyer.

8.4. Can I sign a plea agreement only for some of the offences?

Yes. Article 479 CPC allows, under certain conditions, a plea agreement covering only some of the offences for which the criminal action was initiated. However, the situation becomes complex in multi-count or multi-defendant cases, and the overall strategy must be carefully planned to avoid unintended consequences in related proceedings.

8.5. Is there an absolutely “better” option: plea agreement or simplified procedure?

There is no universally better option. A plea agreement can be very advantageous in cases where the evidence is extremely strong and media exposure is high; the simplified procedure may be preferable where you want to keep the centre of gravity at the court and benefit from the reduction under Article 396(10) CPC. In other cases, it may be wiser not to use any of these special procedures and to go for a full trial with all defence tools available.