The criminal denunciation and the status of informer: advantages, risks and pressures in criminal cases

1. What is a criminal denunciation and how it is defined in the Criminal Procedure Code

The Romanian Criminal Procedure Code defines the denunciation as a notification made by a natural or legal person to the criminal investigation authorities, informing them that a crime has been committed. The detailed regulation of the denunciation is found in Article 290 of the Criminal Procedure Code, in the version of Law no. 135/2010, which can be consulted in the official version published on legislatie.just.ro – Criminal Procedure Code or in consolidated summaries such as lege5.ro – Article 290 CPC.

The denunciation has a few essential features:

• it is addressed to a judicial body (prosecutor’s office or criminal investigation body);
• it comes from a natural or legal person (not from a state authority – in such cases we usually speak about an official notification or report);
• it concerns acts which, in the view of the informer, may constitute criminal offences;
• it can be made in writing or orally, with the observance of the legal requirements on identifying the person who makes the denunciation.

The denunciation is one of the ways in which the criminal investigation authorities are notified, alongside the complaint of the injured person, the prior complaint, the ex officio notification and notifications through reports or specific official acts. The general regime of notification of the criminal investigation bodies is regulated in Title IV of the Criminal Procedure Code, which can be consulted in consolidated form on legislatie.just.ro (Law no. 135/2010).

In legal scholarship, the denunciation is described as a “method of notification through which a person informs a judicial body about the commission of a crime, irrespective of whether or not that person is a victim of the offence” – the emphasis being on the role of the denunciation to trigger the criminal machinery, not on the direct interest of the informer. For doctrinal explanations and debates on the denunciation as a method of notification, see for example the analysis (in Romanian) published in Revista Universul Juridic – Controversial aspects of the denunciation as a way of notification .

2. Denunciation vs criminal complaint and other forms of notification

In practice, the denunciation is often confused with the criminal complaint. The Criminal Procedure Code clearly distinguishes between:

• The complaint – the notification made by the injured person (the one who directly suffers as a result of the crime), regulated by Article 289 CPC and the following, with details in Law no. 135/2010 – CPC.
• The denunciation – the notification made by a person who is not necessarily a victim, but who has knowledge of acts that may constitute crimes (Article 290 CPC).
• The ex officio notification – the situation in which the judicial body becomes aware from other sources (reports, audits, media, other cases) of possible crimes and opens the case ex officio (Article 292 CPC), a provision presented for example on lege5.ro – Article 292 CPC .

The difference is not purely theoretical. For the person filing the notification, the legal label (complaint or denunciation) may have consequences on his or her procedural status later on (injured person, civil party, witness, suspect or defendant) and on the specific rights attached to each status (for example, the right to participate in certain investigative acts or the right to claim damages).

Another important aspect is the obligation to denounce certain crimes. The Criminal Code penalises, in some situations, the failure to denounce serious crimes (through offences such as failure to report a crime, or aiding the offender, depending on the circumstances). The details are set out in the Criminal Code, published by the Ministry of Justice in PDF format, available at just.ro – Criminal Code (PDF) .

3. Who is the informer and what status can he or she have in the criminal proceedings?

The informer is the person who makes the denunciation and thus triggers (or contributes to triggering) the criminal machinery in a particular case. From a procedural point of view, the Criminal Procedure Code does not consecrate a “party” called informer: the person who denounces will later acquire another procedural status, depending on his or her real role in relation to the facts investigated.

Case law has shown clearly that the informer can be:

• a person with no criminal involvement, heard as an ordinary witness;
• a participant in the crime (perpetrator, co-perpetrator, accomplice) who benefits from a cause of impunity or from a reduction of the sentence, but who may nevertheless become a defendant in another case or for other offences;
• a protected witness, within the meaning of Law no. 682/2002 on the protection of witnesses, if the legal conditions are fulfilled (risk to life, bodily integrity, freedom, etc.). The updated text of the law can be consulted on legislatie.just.ro – Law no. 682/2002 .

The High Court of Cassation and Justice clarified, in its Decision no. 1/2020 (Preliminary ruling on questions of law), that:

• the informer, even if he or she benefits from the cause of impunity provided by Article 290 (3) of the Criminal Code (for bribery), does not cease to be the “perpetrator” of the corruption offence in a broad sense;
• in certain conditions, the informer-witness may be the active subject of the offence of false testimony, if he or she does not tell the truth in court when heard as a witness. The text of the decision can be consulted on legislatie.just.ro – HCCJ Decision no. 1/2020 and in practice summaries such as Clujust – The informer-witness and false testimony .

This case law underlines the idea that the informer is not “outside the game” from a criminal point of view. The advantage obtained through the denunciation (for example, impunity or sentence reduction) coexists with the obligation to tell the truth as a witness and with the risk of liability for offences such as misleading the judicial authorities or false testimony if the denunciation is false or if subsequent statements do not correspond to reality.

4. Advantages of the denunciation: causes of impunity and sentence reduction

One of the main reasons why a person decides to make a denunciation is the hope of obtaining a criminal benefit: impunity for his or her own act or a significant reduction of the sentence. Romanian law provides for several express mechanisms to this effect.

4.1. Impunity for the bribe-giver: Article 290 (3) Criminal Code

For the offence of bribery (darea de mită), the Criminal Code provides a special cause of impunity: the bribe-giver is not punished if he or she denounces the act before the criminal investigation authority has been notified about that act. This is regulated by Article 290 (3) of the Criminal Code, with the full text accessible, for example, at lege5.ro – Article 290 CC or in the Criminal Code PDF published by the Ministry of Justice at just.ro – Criminal Code (PDF) .

The main conditions for this cause of impunity are:

• the person must have committed the offence of bribery (typically the bribe-giver);
• the denunciation must be made before the criminal investigation authority has been notified (by any means) in relation to that particular act;
• the denunciation must contain sufficient information to identify the offence and the person (persons) who received the bribe.

In practice, the National Anticorruption Directorate (DNA) explains publicly the benefit for the bribe-giver, showing that impunity operates when the denunciation is made in due time and contains significant data, and that money or benefits may, under certain conditions, be returned to the bribe-giver (especially when they were handed over after the denunciation). A concise presentation is available on the DNA official page, under “How is the person who denounces protected?” .

4.2. Impunity for the buyer of influence: Article 292 (2) Criminal Code

A similar mechanism exists for the offence of buying influence. Article 292 (2) Criminal Code provides that the perpetrator is not punished if he or she denounces the act before the criminal investigation authority has been notified about it. The text can be consulted, for example, on sintact.ro – Article 292 CC .

The logic is the same as in the bribery case: the law encourages the self-denunciation of the person who offered money or benefits to buy influence, in order to discover and prosecute the person who promised or exercised influence (usually officials or persons with decision-making powers).

4.3. Halving of the sentence limits: Article 19 of Law no. 682/2002

A distinct form of benefit is provided by Article 19 of Law no. 682/2002 on the protection of witnesses . This provision regulates the situation where a person who has the status of witness (in the sense of the special law) has committed an offence, and, before or during the criminal investigation or the trial, denounces and facilitates the identification and prosecution of other persons for certain serious offences.

In such cases, the informer-witness may benefit from halving the legal sentencing limits for the offence he or she committed. The legal regime of this cause for sentence reduction has been the subject of detailed doctrinal analysis, for example in Revista Pro Lege – The mitigating cause of Article 19 of Law no. 682/2002 , as well as in High Court decisions dealing with the effects of Article 19 on the execution of punishment and on the procedure for challenges against execution.

4.4. Denunciation as a mitigating circumstance

Beyond these special causes of impunity or sentence reduction, effective cooperation with the judicial authorities – including by making a denunciation – may also be taken into account within the general framework of judicial mitigating circumstances regulated by Article 75 of the Criminal Code. Article 75 can be consulted, for example, at lege5.ro – Article 75 CC .

Courts may consider that a sincere attitude, cooperation in order to establish the truth, voluntary appearance before the authorities and the denunciation of other participants justify the retention of a judicial mitigating circumstance, with the effect of reducing the special limits of the sentence. There are numerous court decisions dealing with sentencing and the role of the defendant’s cooperation, presented in doctrinal works and case law collections.

Attention should be paid, however, to the fact that for some serious offences – including many corruption offences – the law restricts the use of mitigating circumstances (Article 75 (2) Criminal Code). Therefore, the concrete analysis of possible benefits must be carried out in each case together with a criminal law specialist.

5. Credibility of the informer and assessment of evidence

The informer is, at the same time, an essential source of information for the authorities and a person who may have a strong personal interest in obtaining a criminal benefit (impunity, sentence reduction, protection). This duality makes his or her statements particularly sensitive and requires them to be evaluated in the context of all the other evidence.

The Criminal Procedure Code enshrines the principle of free evaluation of evidence in Article 103 CPC: the court decides on the existence of the offence and the defendant’s guilt based on all the evidence administered, and a conviction may be ordered only if the accusation is proven beyond reasonable doubt. The text of Article 103 can be consulted, for example, at legeaz.net – Article 103 CPC .

Paragraph (3) of the same article introduces an important limitation: a conviction cannot be based to a decisive extent on the statements of undercover investigators, collaborators or protected witnesses. This rule has been analysed by the Constitutional Court and by the High Court in connection with the informer-witness and the risk that the criminal trial might rely excessively on such statements.

The Constitutional Court, through decisions such as Decision no. 59/2019 and Decision no. 458/2023, rejected the constitutional challenges to Article 103 (3) CPC, but emphasised that the informer-witness is a person with a strong interest in obtaining a criminal benefit, so that courts must carefully verify his or her statements and corroborate them with other evidence. The full texts of these decisions can be consulted on legislatie.just.ro – CCR Decision no. 59/2019 and sintact.ro – CCR Decision no. 458/2023 .

The High Court, in Decision no. 1/2020, also examined the issue whether the informer-witness, who benefits from the impunity cause in Article 290 (3) CC, may become the active subject of the offences of false testimony or aiding the offender. The court concluded that the benefit of impunity does not exempt the witness from the obligation to tell the truth and does not protect him or her from a potential liability for false testimony if he or she significantly changes his or her statements or hides relevant facts in court. Further details can be found in the High Court’s press release on Decision no. 1/2020 and in specialist commentaries, such as LegalUp – The status of the informer-witness .

The practical conclusion is that the informer is not designed to be the “star witness” on whose statement alone a conviction is built. His or her statements should be seen as one piece of a larger evidential puzzle: interceptions, documents, other statements, expert reports or technical findings. The more evidence there is confirming the denunciation, the higher the informer’s credibility; in the absence of such evidence, courts will be reluctant to convict purely or decisively on the basis of a self-interested statement.

6. The risk of self-incrimination when making a denunciation

One of the most overlooked but important risks for the informer is self-incrimination. In practice, the following scenarios are frequent:

• a person denounces a corruption offence, but from the description of the facts it appears that he or she also took part in the scheme;
• an employee denounces his employer’s tax evasion, but at the same time admits having signed fictitious documents;
• a witness denounces a violent offence, but acknowledges having had a secondary role in the preparation or concealment of the act.

The right not to incriminate oneself is recognised both in domestic law and at European level:

• The Criminal Procedure Code enshrines the witness’s right not to self-incriminate in Article 118 CPC: the witness has the right not to testify about acts or circumstances which, if known, would incriminate him or her. The updated text can be consulted, for example, at sintact.ro – Article 118 CPC .
• The Constitutional Court declared, by Decision no. 236/2020, unconstitutional the previous legislative solution regarding Article 118 CPC precisely because it did not sufficiently protect the witness against self-incrimination. The decision is available on the Court’s website, for instance at CCR – Decision no. 236/2020 (PDF) .
• The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) emphasised in cases such as Saunders v. the United Kingdom and Jalloh v. Germany that the right not to contribute to one’s own incrimination is a central component of the right to a fair trial and that authorities may not use coercive methods to obtain self-incriminating statements.

In the context of the denunciation, these principles translate into several practical rules:

• the judicial body must inform the person summoned as a witness of his or her right not to self-incriminate before the hearing;
• if from the statements it appears that the witness is in fact a suspect, the authorities have the obligation to change his or her status and to respect the specific rights of a suspect/defendant (including the right to remain silent);
• in certain conditions, statements made in violation of this right may be excluded from the evidence.

From the perspective of a person considering making a denunciation, the risk of self-incrimination must be assessed very carefully. The benefits of impunity or sentence reduction (Article 290 (3) CC, Article 292 (2) CC, Article 19 of Law no. 682/2002) are limited to certain offences and conditions, and for acts that do not fall under these hypotheses the informer may him- or herself end up in the dock.

For this reason, consulting a lawyer – before filing a denunciation and before giving detailed statements – is more than a precaution: it is an essential element in protecting one’s own rights and in structuring information so that the procedural position of the informer is clearly understood.

7. Pressures on informers in criminal cases

Complex criminal cases – especially those involving corruption, organised crime, tax evasion or violent offences – often involve tense contexts in which different types of pressure may be exerted on people who could file denunciations or provide decisive statements.

7.1. Institutional and psychological pressure

A person summoned to the prosecutor’s office or to the police, especially in a high-profile case, may feel strong pressure:

• fear of becoming a suspect or defendant if he or she does not cooperate;
• fear of reprisals at work or in the environment he or she comes from;
• fear of media exposure, especially in cases closely followed by the press;
• pressure stemming from the possibility of being accused of false testimony if his or her statements are challenged.

Legal scholarship and public debates have highlighted the risk that the denunciation is “encouraged” by means that in fact place the person in a very difficult position: either cooperate and denounce (accepting the risk of self-incrimination), or refuse and risk being seen as “uncooperative” or even suspected of aiding the offender. Such concerns are raised in specialised literature, including articles devoted to the informer-witness and his or her legal regime, such as “The informer-witness – an open norm” (in Romanian).

7.2. Pressure from the social or criminal environment

The informer may also be subjected to unofficial pressure:

• from the denounced persons or their relatives (threats, intimidation, social isolation);
• from colleagues or superiors at work, if the denunciation concerns acts committed within the organisation;
• from criminal groups, when the denunciation reveals their activity.

This is where the mechanisms for protecting witnesses provided by Law no. 682/2002 come into play, ranging from minimal measures (closed sessions, protection of identity in certain conditions) to inclusion in the witness protection programme, with a change of identity and relocation. The regime of these measures is detailed in Articles 10–21 of Law no. 682/2002, available on legislatie.just.ro – Law no. 682/2002 .

7.3. Liability for misleading the authorities and false testimony

The denunciation is not a “free playground” for unfounded accusations. If the informer knowingly makes false accusations, he or she may be held liable for:

• misleading the judicial authorities (Article 268 Criminal Code), when the person notifies the authorities about a non-existent act or about an act committed by an innocent person;
• false testimony (Article 273 Criminal Code), if, when heard as a witness, the person does not tell the truth about essential facts and circumstances of the case.

The situation of the informer-witness in relation to these offences has been discussed in depth in legal doctrine and case law. For example, the article “The status of the informer-witness” – LegalUp explains how the informer, although benefiting from a cause of impunity for the corruption offence, can nevertheless be prosecuted for false testimony if he or she significantly changes his or her statements in court.

From this perspective, the decision to file a denunciation must be accompanied by the awareness that “telling the whole truth” is not only a moral obligation but also a condition for avoiding liability for misleading the authorities or for false testimony.

8. Denunciation in corruption cases and the role of the DNA

In Romania, a significant proportion of denunciations occurs in cases concerning corruption and related offences falling within the jurisdiction of the National Anticorruption Directorate (Direcția Națională Anticorupție – DNA), regulated by Law no. 78/2000 on preventing, discovering and sanctioning corruption offences .

DNA explains publicly on its website that:

• the bribe-giver or the buyer of influence may benefit from impunity if they denounce the act before the criminal investigation authority has been notified (in application of Articles 290 (3) and 292 (2) Criminal Code);
• the person who has committed one of the offences falling within DNA’s jurisdiction and, during the criminal investigation, denounces and facilitates the identification of other persons who have committed such offences may benefit from halving the sentencing limits, under Article 19 of Law no. 682/2002. These aspects are presented in a synthetic manner on the page DNA – The informer and his/her protection .

In practice, denunciations to DNA can be filed:

• in writing, at the registry of the prosecutor’s offices or by post;
• by electronic means, in accordance with the instructions published on the DNA website;
• directly to the prosecutor or to the delegated criminal investigation body, during hearings.

Regardless of the method, it is essential that the denunciation contains concrete data: the identity of the persons involved, an accurate description of the facts, indication of possible evidence (documents, correspondence, witnesses). A vague denunciation with few details is less likely to effectively trigger a criminal case or to later support a claim for impunity or sentence reduction.

9. Practical steps if you are considering a denunciation

For a person facing the dilemma “should I denounce or not?”, the steps below can serve as a minimal practical guide (without replacing individual legal advice):

1. Clarify your role in the facts.
   Before anything else, it is important to understand whether you were only an observer or whether you played an active role (even a minor one) in committing the offence. This distinction is essential for assessing the risk of self-incrimination and the possible legal benefits.
2. Consult a criminal lawyer.
   The lawyer can explain in concrete terms:
   • whether the facts described fall within the scope of offences for which the law provides impunity or sentence reduction based on a denunciation;
   • what procedural status you are likely to acquire (witness, suspect, defendant, protected witness);
   • what the real risks are and what evidential strategy is appropriate.
3. Gather and organise information and evidence.
   A credible denunciation is supported by objective elements: documents, e-mails, messages, recordings (within the limits of the law), names of witnesses, contracts, invoices etc. Even if some of these cannot be used directly as evidence (for example, recordings made without consent), they can guide the investigation towards legal means of proof.
4. Draft the denunciation in a clear, structured way.
   The denunciation should include:
   • your identification data (including contact details);
   • a chronological description of the facts;
   • identification of the persons involved and their positions or roles;
   • indication of evidence or places where it can be found.
5. Avoid exaggeration or “cosmetic” descriptions.
   Any attempt to inflate or distort reality may backfire, especially if you later appear as a witness in court. The risk of false testimony is real, even for an informer-witness.
6. Pay attention to your later communication with the authorities.
   If you are summoned for hearings, remember your right not to self-incriminate (Article 118 CPC) and your right to legal assistance. You can request your lawyer to be present during hearings and to help you draft coherent and complete statements without exceeding the limits of your rights.

In addition, if the denunciation concerns acts committed at your workplace or within an organisation, you should think about possible professional consequences. In some situations, labour law and legislation on whistleblowers in the public or private sector may offer additional protection mechanisms, but these involve a legal regime distinct from that of the criminal denunciation as such.

10. Conclusions

The denunciation and the status of informer occupy a special place in the architecture of the criminal process: they are, at the same time, tools through which the state discovers “invisible” offences (especially corruption and economic crime) and potential sources of abuse or pressure on the persons involved.

On the one hand, the law offers real benefits to the informer: impunity for the bribe-giver or buyer of influence who denounces in due time, halving of the sentence for witnesses who denounce serious offences falling within DNA’s jurisdiction, the possibility of applying judicial mitigating circumstances for sincere cooperation with the authorities.

On the other hand, the denunciation is not risk free: self-incrimination, public exposure, pressure from the denounced persons or from the professional environment, criminal liability for misleading the judicial authorities or for false testimony. Furthermore, the informer’s credibility is, legitimately, viewed with caution by courts, which cannot base a conviction exclusively or decisively on his or her statements.

Therefore, the decision to make a denunciation should be the result of a lucid analysis, ideally together with a criminal law specialist, who can assess – beyond the immediate emotional reaction – both the advantages and the legal and personal costs of such a step.

Frequently asked questions about denunciations and the status of informer

1. What is, concretely, a criminal denunciation?

A criminal denunciation is a notification addressed to the criminal investigation bodies (prosecutor’s office, judicial police) by a natural or legal person about the commission of a crime. The informer does not have to be the injured party; he or she can be an observer, an employee or even a participant in the offence. The regulation is found in Article 290 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

2. What advantages can the informer obtain in terms of punishment?

In certain situations expressly provided by law, the informer can benefit from:

• impunity, in the case of the bribe-giver (Article 290 (3) CC) and the buyer of influence (Article 292 (2) CC), if he or she denounces before the authorities are informed;
• halving of the sentence limits, under Article 19 of Law no. 682/2002, if, as a witness, he or she denounces and facilitates the prosecution of other persons for serious offences;
• judicial mitigating circumstances, under Article 75 CC, if the court considers that the denunciation and sincere cooperation justify a more lenient sentence.

3. Can the informer be convicted if he or she lies or exaggerates?

Yes. If the informer knowingly makes false accusations, he or she may be held liable for misleading the judicial authorities (Article 268 CC). If, as a witness, he or she does not tell the truth or omits essential facts, he or she may be prosecuted for false testimony (Article 273 CC). The benefits of impunity or sentence reduction for the denounced act do not protect the informer from liability for misleading the authorities or for false testimony.

4. Can the denunciation be withdrawn?

The Criminal Procedure Code does not regulate, expressly, an institution of “withdrawal of denunciation” similar to the withdrawal of the prior complaint in certain offences. Once notified, the criminal investigation authority is obliged to verify the facts even if the informer later changes his or her position. The informer may, of course, make additional statements or correct information, but his or her withdrawal does not automatically stop the criminal case.

5. Is the denunciation confidential? Can the denounced persons find out who filed it?

As a rule, the denunciation becomes part of the criminal file, and the parties have the right to access the case materials. There are, however, situations in which the informer’s identity can be protected, if he or she becomes a protected witness under Law no. 682/2002 (real danger to life, bodily integrity, freedom). Even in such cases, the protection of identity is subject to strict conditions and can be reviewed by the court.

6. I took part in the act. Is it better to self-denounce or to wait to be discovered?

The answer depends on the type of offence and the moment in time. For certain offences (e.g. bribery, buying influence) the law offers clear benefits to the person who denounces before the authorities are notified. In other cases, the denunciation can be taken into account as a mitigating circumstance or in the context of plea bargaining. The concrete assessment should be made together with a lawyer, who can evaluate the risks and benefits in the specific case.

Sources and useful resources

• Law no. 135/2010 on the Criminal Procedure Code – legislatie.just.ro
• Criminal Code (Law no. 286/2009) – Ministry of Justice (PDF)
• Law no. 682/2002 on the protection of witnesses – legislatie.just.ro
• Law no. 78/2000 on preventing, discovering and sanctioning corruption offences – legislatie.just.ro
• National Anticorruption Directorate (DNA) – Information for informers
• High Court of Cassation and Justice – Decision no. 1/2020 on the informer-witness
• Constitutional Court of Romania – Decision no. 59/2019 (Article 103 (3) CPC)
• ECtHR – Saunders v. the United Kingdom (right not to incriminate oneself)
• ECtHR – Jalloh v. Germany (forced evidence and fair trial)