The competence of the National Anticorruption Directorate (DNA) in Romania: when does a corruption case go to the specialised prosecutors and which offences fall under their remit?

This article is for information only and does not constitute legal advice. Real cases must be analysed by a lawyer, in relation to all the documents in the file and the legislation in force at that time.

1. What is the National Anticorruption Directorate (DNA) and why does it have a special competence?

The National Anticorruption Directorate (Direcția Națională Anticorupție – DNA) is a specialised prosecution office, organised as a structure with legal personality within the Public Prosecutor’s Office attached to the High Court of Cassation and Justice. Its mandate is to investigate and prosecute corruption offences and related crimes, especially when they are committed by high-level public officials or when they cause significant damage to the public budget or to the financial interests of the European Union. The main legal framework is Government Emergency Ordinance (GEO) no. 43/2002 on the National Anticorruption Directorate and Law no. 78/2000 for the prevention, detection and sanctioning of corruption offences.

In practice this means that not every bribery or fraud case automatically goes to DNA. The competence of DNA is expressly defined by law: what matters is both the type of offence (whether it is a corruption offence or one assimilated to corruption) and the amount of the damage, the value of the bribe and the status of the persons involved – for example, ministers, MPs, high-ranking officials, mayors, directors of state-owned companies or other categories expressly mentioned by law.

Through this special competence regime, the legislator has tried to concentrate at DNA medium and high level corruption cases, especially those at central or high local level, while the “petty” corruption cases remain in the remit of local prosecutors’ offices (attached to district courts, tribunals or courts of appeal).

2. The legal basis of DNA’s competence

2.1. GEO no. 43/2002 – the core provisions on competence

Chapter III of GEO no. 43/2002 regulates the competence of the National Anticorruption Directorate. Article 13 sets out three major categories of cases that fall within DNA’s remit:

• Offences provided for in Law no. 78/2000, if:
  • the material damage exceeds the RON equivalent of EUR 200,000; or
  • the value of the sum or of the good that forms the object of the corruption offence exceeds the RON equivalent of EUR 10,000 (Article 13 para. (1) letter a of GEO no. 43/2002);
• Offences provided for in Law no. 78/2000, irrespective of the damage, if they are committed by certain categories of persons (dignitaries, members of the Government, MPs, mayors, heads of central or local public authorities, directors of state-owned companies and so on) – Article 13 para. (1) letter b of GEO no. 43/2002;
• Offences against the financial interests of the European Union (Article 13 para. (2) of GEO no. 43/2002) and certain offences of abuse of office or similar offences, if the damage exceeds the RON equivalent of EUR 1,000,000 (Article 13 para. (3) of GEO no. 43/2002).

In short, GEO no. 43/2002 states that DNA is competent when there are corruption offences or offences assimilated to corruption and when the value thresholds for damage or bribe are met, or the special status of the persons involved is triggered.

2.2. Law no. 78/2000 – what counts as a “corruption offence”?

Law no. 78/2000 does not merely refer in general terms to corruption, but lays down in detail the categories of offences covered and the persons to whom it applies. It addresses in particular:

• Corruption offences in the strict sense, such as:
  • taking a bribe (Article 289 of the Criminal Code);
  • giving a bribe (Article 290 of the Criminal Code);
  • trading in influence (Article 291 of the Criminal Code);
  • buying influence (Article 292 of the Criminal Code);
• Offences assimilated to corruption offences – Articles 10–13 of Law no. 78/2000 (for instance, intentionally setting a reduced value for assets in privatisations or enforcement proceedings, using one’s influence within a political party, using confidential information in financial transactions contrary to one’s duties, etc.);
• Offences affecting the financial interests of the European Union – Articles 18¹–18³ of Law no. 78/2000 (obtaining or retaining EU funds by using false documents, illegally changing the destination of European funds, unlawfully diminishing resources that should be transferred to the EU budget);
• Special provisions on abuse of office or usurpation of office where an undue benefit is obtained (Article 13² of Law no. 78/2000, in conjunction with Article 297 of the Criminal Code).

It follows that DNA does not deal only with “classic bribery”, but with a much wider spectrum of conducts, as long as they fall within the scope of Law no. 78/2000 and the statutory conditions regarding value thresholds or status of the persons involved are met.

2.3. Other relevant pieces of legislation

DNA’s competence must also be read in conjunction with:

• High Court of Cassation and Justice Decision no. 26/2021 (appeal in the interest of the law), which interprets the competence conditions in certain abuse of office situations in relation to Law no. 78/2000;
• Law no. 49/2022 on the dismantling of the Section for the Investigation of Offences committed by Judges and Prosecutors (SIIJ), which defines a separate competence regime for offences committed by magistrates (primarily in favour of the Section for Criminal Investigation within the Prosecutor’s Office attached to the High Court of Cassation and Justice and of the prosecutors’ offices attached to the courts of appeal);
• the provisions of the Criminal Code and the Criminal Procedure Code on material and personal competence of prosecutors’ offices and courts.

3. Concretely, what “corruption offences” may fall within DNA’s competence?

In everyday language, “corruption” is a very broad term. From a legal standpoint, when we talk about DNA’s competence, we are mainly interested in:

• Taking a bribe – receiving money or other undue benefits, directly or indirectly, for performing, failing to perform or delaying an act, or for performing an act contrary to one’s official duties (usually committed by public officials or persons assimilated to them);
• Giving a bribe – promising, offering or giving money or undue benefits to an official or a person assimilated to an official, in order to obtain an advantage;
• Trading in influence and buying influence – situations in which a person claims or accepts that they can influence a public official and receives or demands money or other benefits for such influence, or in which another person offers or gives these benefits in order to “buy” influence;
• Offences assimilated to corruption – for example, intentionally setting a diminished value for assets belonging to a state-owned company in privatisations, using subsidies for purposes other than those for which they were granted, conducting financial operations incompatible with one’s office, etc. (Articles 10–13 of Law no. 78/2000);
• Offences involving EU funds – presenting false documents to obtain European funds, unlawfully changing the destination of funds, unlawfully diminishing resources that must be paid to the EU budget (Articles 18¹–18³ of Law no. 78/2000);
• Abuse of office or usurpation of office when committed in a context of corruption or in connection with European funds, under the conditions laid down by Law no. 78/2000 and Article 13 of GEO no. 43/2002.

Not every unlawful act committed by a public official is automatically “corruption” in the sense of Law no. 78/2000. For example, simple negligence or disciplinary breaches do not fall within DNA’s scope unless they constitute specific criminal offences and the legal conditions (value thresholds, status of persons, link to public or EU funds, etc.) are met.

4. DNA’s competence based on the value of the damage and of the bribe

4.1. The EUR 200,000 threshold – material damage

According to Article 13 para. (1) letter a of GEO no. 43/2002, DNA is competent for offences provided by Law no. 78/2000 if the material damage exceeds the RON equivalent of EUR 200,000, regardless of the status of the persons who committed the offence.

In practice, this threshold is particularly relevant in:

• cases concerning public procurement – overvalued contracts, rigged tenders, fictitious services or works, etc.;
• privatisations or transfers of state assets at prices far below their real value;
• projects with public (national or European) funding in which misappropriation, fraud or illegal use of funds is found.

The damage is usually established through control documents (reports of the Court of Accounts, audit reports, inspection reports, accounting expert reports, etc.). The amount may be challenged during the criminal investigation or at trial. However, at the initial stage, the provisional assessment of the damage influences which prosecutor’s office is considered competent.

4.2. The EUR 10,000 threshold – the value of the bribe or of the undue benefit

The same Article 13 para. (1) letter a of GEO no. 43/2002 provides that DNA becomes competent also when the value of the bribe or of the good that forms the object of the corruption offence exceeds the RON equivalent of EUR 10,000, even if the damage to the public budget is lower or non-existent.

The classic example is that of a public official or dignitary who receives a significant sum of money to influence an administrative or political decision, without this decision immediately generating a quantifiable loss to the state budget. In such situations, the amount of the bribe itself is the criterion that attracts DNA’s competence.

4.3. The EUR 1,000,000 threshold – certain abuse of office offences

Article 13 para. (3) of GEO no. 43/2002 extends DNA’s competence to certain offences provided by the Criminal Code (such as abuse of office or similar service-related offences), when the damage caused exceeds the RON equivalent of EUR 1,000,000.

This provision targets situations where, for instance, acts of abuse of office (such as awarding contracts in a preferential manner or selling a state-owned asset at a fraction of its real value) generate extremely high financial damage. Once a certain quantitative level is reached, even if no bribe has been proven, the sheer economic impact of the act justifies the involvement of the specialised anticorruption prosecution office.

5. DNA’s competence based on the status of the persons involved

5.1. High-ranking officials and dignitaries

Article 13 para. (1) letter b of GEO no. 43/2002 contains a long list of persons for whom DNA is competent regardless of the value of the damage or of the bribe, as long as the offences are covered by Law no. 78/2000. Among them:

• members of the Parliament (deputies and senators);
• members from Romania of the European Parliament;
• members of the Government, state secretaries and deputy state secretaries;
• judges of the Constitutional Court and of the High Court of Cassation and Justice;
• members of the Superior Council of Magistracy;
• prefects and sub-prefects;
• presidents and vice-presidents of county councils;
• the General Mayor of Bucharest, mayors and deputy mayors of municipalities and of Bucharest districts;
• heads of central and local public authorities and institutions (with certain exceptions for smaller localities);
• persons holding management positions (from director upwards) in national companies, state-owned enterprises, banks with majority state capital and other financial institutions where the state has a decisive role.

Through this regulation, DNA is designed to handle primarily high-level corruption – where the social, economic and institutional impact tends to be the most serious.

5.2. Other professional categories – lawyers, customs personnel, directors of state-owned companies

The same Article 13 para. (1) letter b of GEO no. 43/2002 also mentions other categories of persons, such as:

• lawyers;
• police officers and other law enforcement officers;
• customs officials;
• former financial control officers and similar categories provided by law;
• persons in management positions (director level and above) in autonomous state-owned entities of national interest, national companies and banks, as well as other central financial institutions.

For these categories, their professional status – combined with the fact that the offence falls under Law no. 78/2000 – is sufficient to trigger DNA’s competence, without any minimum damage threshold.

5.3. The special situation of magistrates after the dismantling of SIIJ

Although Article 13 para. (1) letter b of GEO no. 43/2002 lists judges and prosecutors among the categories of persons for whom DNA is competent, their regime has been modified by Law no. 49/2022, which dismantled the Section for the Investigation of Offences committed by Judges and Prosecutors (SIIJ) and established a special competence regime for offences committed by magistrates (mainly in favour of the Section for Criminal Investigation within the Prosecutor’s Office attached to the High Court of Cassation and Justice and of prosecutors’ offices attached to courts of appeal).

As a result, for corruption offences committed by magistrates, competence must be analysed in parallel with the special rules on offences committed by judges and prosecutors. The situation is technically complex, and in practice the determination of the competent prosecutor’s office depends on the combined interpretation of GEO no. 43/2002, Law no. 49/2022 and the Criminal Procedure Code.

6. Offences against the financial interests of the European Union

Article 13 para. (2) of GEO no. 43/2002 provides that offences against the financial interests of the European Union fall within DNA’s competence. These offences are detailed in Articles 18¹–18³ of Law no. 78/2000 and mainly concern:

• presenting false, inaccurate or incomplete documents or statements in order to obtain EU funds;
• failing to provide data required to obtain or retain EU funds;
• unlawfully changing the destination of European funds;
• unlawfully diminishing resources that should be transferred to the EU budget.

DNA’s competence must also be viewed in the context of the establishment of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office (EPPO), which has its own powers regarding certain offences affecting the financial interests of the European Union in the Member States. In cases where EPPO is competent, the investigation is coordinated at European level, and DNA cooperates with EPPO within the limits set by the EU regulation and national law.

7. What do cases within DNA’s competence look like in practice?

Annual activity reports show that, since its establishment, DNA has handled thousands of medium and high-level corruption cases, targeting both central and local politicians and the leadership of public institutions and state-owned companies. According to the public data, these reports highlight not only the large number of defendants sent to trial, but also the very high value of the alleged damage and of the bribes identified in indictments. DNA’s reports and summaries are generally available on the institution’s official website, in the “Activity” or “Annual reports” sections.

Some of the most common types of cases include:

• files concerning rigged public tenders for works, services or goods;
• cases relating to controversial privatisations or transfers of state assets at artificially low prices;
• offences linked to European funds – fictitious projects, false documentation, diversion of funds from their intended purpose;
• corruption in the political sphere and central or local public administration;
• situations of conflict of interest or incompatibilities associated with other corruption or corruption-related offences.

However, not all such acts automatically go to DNA. For example, a relatively small bribery case involving a low-level official and a few hundred lei will normally be investigated by the local prosecutor’s office, not by DNA – unless there are special elements (involvement of one of the categories listed in Article 13 para. (1) letter b, link to EU funds, a very high damage, etc.).

8. What happens if DNA is not competent?

Competence is initially determined on the basis of how the criminal investigation is triggered (complaint, denunciation, ex officio notification, control reports, etc.). If a case reaches DNA and the prosecutor finds that the competence conditions are not met (for example, the damage is below the statutory thresholds, the person does not fall into any of the categories in Article 13, the offence is not covered by Law no. 78/2000), the specialised prosecution office may:

• decline competence to the prosecutor’s office that is deemed competent (typically the prosecutor’s office attached to the district court, tribunal or court of appeal, depending on the case);
• disjoin the case, keeping the part of the case for which DNA is competent and sending the remaining part to another prosecutor’s office (for example, DNA retains the corruption offence linked to a public procurement procedure but disjoins a smaller offence of forgery or abuse of office).

If there are disagreements between prosecutor’s offices regarding competence (for example, the local prosecutor’s office and DNA each consider that the other is competent), the conflict is settled by the hierarchically superior prosecutor’s office, according to the Criminal Procedure Code.

9. What can a person targeted in a DNA case do?

From the perspective of an individual or a company, DNA’s competence may be relevant both for the defence strategy and for understanding the real risks (for example, the usual case law in similar cases, the resources available to the prosecutors, etc.). In broad terms, a person targeted in a case falling within DNA’s competence should consider:

• checking the legal classification of the facts – whether the acts are indeed covered by Law no. 78/2000 or by other relevant provisions and whether the value thresholds and the status of the persons involved justify DNA’s competence;
• analysing how the damage has been assessed – control reports, audit reports, accounting expert opinions and other financial documents;
• the possibility of lodging requests and raising exceptions on competence grounds, under the Criminal Procedure Code (for example, in the preliminary chamber phase after the case has been sent to court).

These issues relate to the actual defence in a concrete file and require tailored legal advice. This article only aims to explain, in accessible language, when and why a case is handled by DNA, and is not intended to replace the case-by-case assessment of a lawyer.

Frequently asked questions about DNA’s competence (FAQ)