Introduction
In 2025, migrant smuggling remains an acute issue at both European and national level, closely linked to the broader phenomenon of irregular migration. After the 2015 migration crisis, smuggler networks intensified their activity, taking advantage of migrants’ desire to reach Western Europe. It is estimated that over 90% of migrants who attempt to enter the EU irregularly rely on clandestine smuggling services, turning this activity into an extremely profitable global business. According to UN data, the illegal smuggling of migrants generates annual revenues of approximately EUR 4.7–6 billion worldwide. At the same time, the risk for smugglers of being caught remains relatively low, which has led European authorities to make the fight against the facilitation of irregular migration a security priority (EMPACT 2022–2025).
For Romania – located on the Western Balkan route, at the external border of the EU – migrant smuggling has become increasingly visible in recent years. Recent cases investigated by DIICOT show the involvement of local groups connected to transnational networks which move migrants from the Middle East and Asia through Romania towards Western European states. Combating this phenomenon is essential both for respecting Romania’s international and EU obligations and for deterring criminal networks that exploit the vulnerability of migrants.
The offence of migrant smuggling in the Romanian Criminal Code (Art. 263)
Definition and constitutive elements
The offence of migrant smuggling is regulated in the Romanian Criminal Code at Article 263, in the chapter “Offences concerning the state border”. According to Article 263(1) CC, the typical act consists in:
“recruiting, guiding, leading, transporting, transferring or sheltering a person, for the purpose of fraudulently crossing the state border of Romania”
and is punishable by imprisonment from 2 to 7 years.
In other words, the law criminalises any intentional act of facilitating the illegal crossing of the border by a person who does not have that right. The active subject of the offence can be any person, with the exception of the migrant himself/herself. The migrant is treated essentially as a victim of the offence and is not punished for his/her own attempt to cross the border irregularly.
The required mental element is direct intent: the offence is intentional and implies awareness and will to help someone enter or leave the country illegally.
Aggravated forms
The Criminal Code provides aggravated forms of migrant smuggling in Article 263(2), which attract a higher penalty – imprisonment from 3 to 10 years and a ban on the exercise of certain rights – where the act is committed in particularly serious circumstances. The law qualifies as aggravating, in particular:
- commission of the act for the purpose of obtaining, directly or indirectly, a patrimonial gain (financial or material profit);
- committing the act by means which endanger the life, bodily integrity or health of the migrant;
- subjecting the migrant, during the smuggling operation, to inhuman or degrading treatment.
These circumstances reflect the higher social danger of acts committed by profit-driven smuggling networks, often with no regard whatsoever for the life or dignity of migrants. Attempt to commit migrant smuggling is also punishable (Art. 263(3) CC), in view of the need to sanction such activities at an early stage.
Legislative developments and attempts at reform
The current incrimination in the Criminal Code (Law no. 286/2009) partially took over the previous regulation contained in special legislation (Article 71 of Government Emergency Ordinance no. 105/2001 on the state border). Under the old regulation, obtaining a material benefit was an element of the basic offence. The new Criminal Code moved this element into the aggravated form.
The Romanian legislator thus broadened the scope of the basic offence, which now covers all situations of smuggling in which the profit-making purpose cannot be proved, while leaving financial gain as an aggravating circumstance. The rationale behind this choice was evidentiary difficulty: migrants and their families are often in a position of vulnerability vis-à-vis smugglers, which may make it impossible in practice to prove payment or material benefit, even though, obviously, smugglers act for profit.
This stricter regulation compared to the international standard has generated legal debate. In 2019, the Constitutional Court was seized with an exception of unconstitutionality of Article 263 CC. The authors criticised precisely the omission, in the basic form, of the requirement of a profit-making purpose (which appears in the UN Protocol on smuggling of migrants). The Court rejected the exception, holding that the provision is sufficiently clear and that Romania enjoys a margin of appreciation to criminalise the phenomenon more severely, as long as illicit profit remains an aggravating form in line with Article 6(4) of the Protocol.
The Constitutional Court also stressed that the migrant is implicitly excluded from the scope of possible perpetrators. Even though Article 263 does not expressly use the term “victim”, this is found in Article 264 CC on facilitating illegal stay, which refers to the migrant as a protected victim.
There has also been doctrinal debate on a domestic version of the “offence of solidarity”: whether acts committed for humanitarian reasons or by family members of the migrant should be excluded from criminal liability. To date, the Romanian legislator has not adopted explicit exemptions from punishment for such situations (unlike other states, such as France, as will be seen below). However, by way of judicial interpretation and application, practice tends to exclude from prosecution the migrant himself/herself and those acting without a profit purpose in his/her support; such scenarios are not the focus of usual criminal practice in migrant smuggling cases.
DIICOT practice and HCCJ case law
Concrete examples and networks’ modus operandi
In Romania, competence to investigate migrant smuggling offences lies mainly with DIICOT (the Directorate for Investigating Organized Crime and Terrorism), given the frequently organised and cross-border nature of such acts. DIICOT’s case-law often reveals the existence of specialised organised criminal groups that cooperate with networks in other countries along well-established routes.
An illustrative example is a 2023 case in which a clandestine route including Romania (as transit country) – Hungary – Italy was documented. The organised group, made up of Romanian nationals, operated in direct connection with members of transnational networks, with the purpose of organising and carrying out fraudulent transports of migrants along this route “in exchange for sums of money”. Investigators found that each migrant was charged approximately EUR 1,300 to be transported from western Romania to Italy, to the final destination.
The group was structured hierarchically, with members having clearly defined roles: recruiting migrants, ensuring accommodation in so-called “safe houses” near the border, securing vehicles, scouting routes and “windows” for crossing, or escorting convoys. The migrants were transported primarily in vans and lorries modified to include hidden compartments – false walls and concealment spaces – in which several people could be squeezed in dangerous conditions. At the same time, drivers willing to use their lorries and vans for such transports were recruited and paid, and false transport documents (CMRs, seals) were prepared in order to create the appearance of legitimate goods transport.
Over the investigated period (March – November 2023), the authorities managed to stop 15 illegal transports involving more than 380 migrants from countries such as Syria, Iraq and Pakistan. The case illustrates the complexity of evidentiary work: investigations often require surveillance, wiretapping, simultaneous searches in several counties, cooperation with border police forces in neighbouring states, as well as asset seizures (modified vehicles, cash, telephones, forged documents).
Evidentiary difficulties and legal classification issues
One of the main challenges in these cases is documenting the profit-making purpose and the internal hierarchy of the group. Frequently, smuggled migrants either cannot be identified or detained (continuing their journey to the West) or, once identified, hesitate to testify against the smugglers out of fear or because they still hope to continue their journey. Payments for transport are often made outside Romania or through informal financial networks, making it difficult to prove money flows.
As the Constitutional Court itself acknowledged, there are situations where it is “impossible to prove the obtaining of financial or material benefits, although, clearly, those who commit the act are not part of the migrant’s family and do not act for humanitarian reasons”. In such cases, the legal classification remains that of the basic form of the offence (even if, in fact, the activity was financially motivated), which simplifies the prosecution’s task.
Migrant smuggling often concurs in real concurrence with the offence of establishing an organised criminal group (Article 367 CC), bearing in mind that these networks typically involve at least three persons who coordinate their actions. The courts have nonetheless clarified, in the case-law of the High Court of Cassation and Justice (HCCJ), certain issues of qualification and liability. For instance, decision no. 15/2015 of the High Court (RIL panel) held that the mere involvement of a vehicle belonging to a transport company in a migrant smuggling case does not automatically entail the criminal liability of the company if there is no proof of its participation in the offence. In other words, the owner’s lack of knowledge of the illicit purpose for which the vehicle was used prevents the company from being held liable and also excludes special confiscation of the vehicle where the owner acted in good faith.
Another noteworthy case is that of former MP Mihai Lasca, who was finally acquitted by the HCCJ in a migrant smuggling file, the court finding that the evidence did not prove his role in an organised network (the case also illustrates the long duration of such proceedings and the complexity of evidence-taking).^(see HCCJ, criminal decision no. 232/2021)
Cross-border connections
Almost every migrant smuggling case has an international dimension, either through the origin of the migrants (outside the EU) or through the links between Romanian smugglers and the external “pipeline”. It is well known that irregular migration routes pass through multiple countries. For example, migrants from the Middle East and Central Asia may enter the EU via Turkey – Bulgaria/Greece, then reach Romania or Serbia and continue towards Hungary, Austria, Germany and other states.
Smuggling groups operate in a chain: one segment takes charge of migrants at the entry into a country, another transports them to the western border, another takes over in the neighbouring state, and so on. This fragmentation makes it difficult to capture the hierarchical leaders of networks, who are usually located in transit or destination countries and coordinate operations from a distance.
For Romanian authorities, cooperation via Eurojust, Europol and instruments such as the European Arrest Warrant is essential to dismantle the entire network and not just the low-level guides on national territory. In recent years, DIICOT has taken part in numerous joint investigation teams (JITs) together with prosecutors from states such as Hungary, Serbia, Italy and Germany, with the aim of synchronising investigations and gathering cross-border evidence (extradition or consolidation of cases, exchange of operational information, tracing international financial flows, etc.). One positive effect of this concerted effort is the increased number of defendants brought to justice and convicted in migrant smuggling cases, including at higher judicial levels. At the same time, cooperation has led to the prevention of tragedies (migrants abandoned in life-threatening conditions) and to saving human lives.
Comparative law: the approach to migrant smuggling in Germany, France and the USA
General overview
The phenomenon of migrant smuggling (or “contraband of migrants”) is criminalised in most jurisdictions, but there are significant differences in the definition of the offence, in the severity of sanctions and in enforcement policies. The following is a brief overview of the approaches in Germany, France and the United States, highlighting common elements and divergences in comparison with the Romanian system.
Germany
In Germany, the offence of facilitating irregular migration (Einschleusen von Ausländern, often referred to publicly as “Schleusungskriminalität”) is regulated not in the Criminal Code, but in the Residence Act (Aufenthaltsgesetz, §§ 96–97). German law criminalises assistance given to a foreigner to enter or remain illegally on German territory, especially where it is committed for profit or within an organised group.
The basic form is punishable by up to 5 years’ imprisonment or a fine, while serious cases (committed by an organised group, endangering the life of migrants or involving a high number of migrants) can attract penalties of up to 10 years. The law therefore clearly targets professional smugglers who systematically facilitate irregular entry or stay for profit.
German case-law contains numerous examples of strict sentencing in migrant smuggling cases, including where Romanian nationals have been involved in cross-border networks. In one case which also attracted Romanian media attention, two Romanian traffickers were convicted in Germany to prison sentences of 2 years and 9 months, respectively 3 years and 3 months for transporting in dangerous conditions over 220 asylum seekers (including children) from Hungary to Germany in 2015. Each migrant paid around EUR 500 to be hidden in vans and taken across the border, the total profits of the network being substantial. The case illustrates the severity with which German courts treat such acts and the judicial cooperation with Romania, the two smugglers having been arrested in Romania in 2016 and surrendered to the German authorities on the basis of a European Arrest Warrant.
France
In France, the equivalent offence is known as “aide à l’entrée, à la circulation ou au séjour irréguliers d’un étranger” and is laid down in the Code on the entry and stay of foreigners (CESEDA). French law punishes:
“any person who, by direct or indirect assistance, facilitates or attempts to facilitate the irregular entry, transit or stay of a foreigner in France”
with up to 5 years’ imprisonment and a EUR 30,000 fine (basic penalty). As in Romania, there are aggravated forms: if the act is committed by an organised group, endangering the life of migrants, or involving violence or exploitation, the penalties increase significantly.
At the same time, France has been at the centre of a major debate on the so-called “délit de solidarité” – the criminalisation of citizens or NGOs who help migrants out of solidarity. Numerous cases have involved volunteers or associations who provided food, shelter or medical care to irregular migrants and were prosecuted under the facilitation offence. Following intense public and political controversy, the French Constitutional Council delivered a landmark decision in July 2018, recognising that the principle of fraternity (fraternité) has constitutional value and protects acts of humanitarian solidarity. Consequently, French law now provides for exemptions from liability for purely humanitarian assistance, distinguishing between profit-driven smugglers targeted by the law and “solidaires” – citizens or NGOs who help migrants for altruistic reasons. In practice, French authorities focus on dismantling organised criminal networks, in cooperation with European agencies (Frontex, Europol), while taking into account fundamental rights and the obligations arising from the European Convention on Human Rights.
United States
In the United States, migrant smuggling is criminalised as alien smuggling in federal law (8 U.S.C. § 1324 – Bringing in and Harboring Aliens). The statute criminalises both bringing foreign nationals illegally into US territory and transporting or harbouring them in violation of immigration law, where these acts are committed knowingly and wilfully.
Sanctions are very severe, reflecting the country’s tough policy against irregular migration. As a rule, for each migrant smuggled, a penalty of up to 10 years’ federal imprisonment may be imposed where the act is committed for commercial advantage or private financial gain, with even higher penalties where life is endangered or deaths occur. US law also covers those who harbour or employ undocumented migrants, in an integrated approach to the phenomenon of clandestine immigration.
From an enforcement perspective, the United States treats migrant smuggling as a matter of border security and national security (especially at the border with Mexico), investing substantial resources in large-scale operations against cartels involved in smuggling people. In 2021, the Department of Justice launched the Joint Task Force Alpha initiative – a special task force dedicated to dismantling migrant smuggling networks from Central and South America, working together with governments in the region to disrupt these networks at source. US law also provides for penalties for those who employ or exploit undocumented migrants, thereby targeting both supply and demand in the smuggling chain.
Comparative conclusions
In conclusion, although Germany, France and the United States differ in their approaches – particularly regarding the requirement of a profit-making purpose and the treatment of humanitarian assistance – they share strong common elements: all criminalise the facilitation of illegal entry or stay as a serious offence, with significant custodial sentences, and all are part of international efforts to combat migrant smuggling networks. Romania aligns with these standards, both in terms of severity of sanctions and the legal definition of the offence, within the parameters set by the UN Protocol and EU law.
International conventions and relevant bodies
Palermo Protocol (2000)
The main international instrument on migrant smuggling is the Palermo Protocol – more precisely, the Protocol against the Smuggling of Migrants by Land, Sea and Air, supplementing the UN Convention against Transnational Organized Crime. Adopted in New York in November 2000, the Protocol is the key global document defining “smuggling of migrants” and obliging States to criminalise it.
The Protocol provides the first universal definition: migrant smuggling is
“the procurement, in order to obtain, directly or indirectly, a financial or other material benefit, of the illegal entry of a person into a State Party of which the person is not a national or a permanent resident”.
Importantly, the Protocol emphasises that migrants themselves should not be criminalised solely for having been smuggled and that States must protect their rights (Articles 5 and 16). Romania ratified the Protocol by Law no. 565/2002, and its provisions formed the basis for the initial incrimination of the offence in Romanian legislation.
Although the Romanian Criminal Code did not take over the definition verbatim (placing the profit element in the aggravated form rather than in the basic form), Romanian authorities stress that this higher level of severity is permitted by the Protocol: Article 34(3) of the Convention allows States to adopt stricter measures than the minimum standard. The Palermo Protocol remains the main reference point for national policies and international cooperation against migrant smuggling.
UN Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC)
UNODC is the UN agency responsible for monitoring the implementation of the 2000 Convention and its Protocols. It provides technical assistance to States, collects data and publishes global reports on trafficking in persons and migrant smuggling.
A key document is the Global Study on Smuggling of Migrants (2018), which maps global routes, networks’ modus operandi and policy recommendations. According to UNODC estimates, at least 2.5 million migrants were smuggled in a single year (2016), generating illicit profits of many billions of dollars – figures which confirm the transnational organised crime nature of the phenomenon. UNODC also promotes programmes to protect the rights of smuggled migrants and highlights the distinction from human trafficking (which involves severe exploitation). Through its regional office and national contact points, UNODC supports Romania in legislative harmonisation and prevention campaigns.
EU initiatives and agencies (Frontex, Europol, Eurojust, EMN)
At EU level, migrant smuggling is addressed through a combination of legislation and operational structures:
- EU legal and policy framework – including the EU Action Plan against migrant smuggling (updated to 2021–2025) and instruments on police and judicial cooperation;
- Frontex – the European Border and Coast Guard Agency, which plays a key operational role through joint operations at land and sea borders, risk analysis and support to Member States in tackling smuggling routes;
- Europol – which supports investigations through analytical work, intelligence sharing and coordination of cross-border operations against criminal networks;
- Eurojust – the EU Agency for Criminal Justice Cooperation, which facilitates coordination between national prosecutors, sets up joint investigation teams and helps resolve conflicts of jurisdiction in complex cases;
- European Migration Network (EMN) and platforms such as MED5, where frontline Mediterranean states (Italy, Spain, Greece, Malta, Cyprus) cooperate on migration and anti-smuggling policies.
These instruments reflect the understanding that migrant smuggling cannot be effectively combated by one state alone and requires coordinated, solidarity-based responses.
Relationship with other offences
Migrant smuggling vs. human trafficking
Although in everyday language the terms are sometimes confused, legally migrant smuggling (smuggling of migrants) and human trafficking are distinct offences.
Human trafficking (Article 210 CC) involves the exploitation of human beings – usually through coercion – for purposes such as prostitution, forced labour, organ removal and other forms of severe exploitation. It entails deprivation of liberty or abuse of vulnerability and is fundamentally a crime against the person, violating the victim’s dignity and freedom.
Migrant smuggling, by contrast, is an offence against the state border and migration regime. The migrant is, in principle, a consenting party seeking to be transported, and the core protected interest is the state’s control over its borders and immigration policy. Where the facts reveal elements of exploitation (deprivation of liberty, violence, threats, forced labour, sexual exploitation), the proper legal classification will be human trafficking, which may absorb acts of fraudulent border crossing.
Correctly distinguishing between smuggling and trafficking is essential, as it carries consequences in terms of jurisdiction, victim protection (victims of human trafficking benefit from special protection and assistance, whereas smuggled migrants do not enjoy the same status) and penal policy (traffickers can receive sentences of 20+ years where aggravating circumstances such as the victim’s death are present).
Facilitating illegal stay (Art. 264 CC)
Romanian law separately criminalises facilitating illegal stay (Article 264 CC), which covers acts committed on Romanian territory in order to help a foreigner remain illegally in the country. This offence is closely connected with migrant smuggling: the same networks or their local branches may provide transport, accommodation and forged documents not only for crossing the border but also for staying irregularly afterwards.
Article 264 explicitly refers to the migrant as a victim, underlining the legislator’s intent to protect him/her rather than punish. As a rule, irregular migrants are subject to administrative measures (return, removal, entry bans), but not criminal liability for migrant smuggling.
Other related offences
Migrant smuggling often intersects with other offences:
- Money laundering – because smuggling is highly profitable, networks attempt to conceal illicit earnings through front companies, fictitious contracts or cash-intensive businesses. Tracing and confiscating these flows is key to deterring smuggling.
- Forgery of documents – networks frequently rely on forged documents (passports, visas, residence permits, CMRs, seals, tickets), making document forgery an auxiliary offence.
- Corruption – in some cases, smugglers bribe public officials (especially at borders) to allow vehicles or groups of migrants to pass unchecked; such acts can result in charges of bribery or abuse of office.
- Violence, homicide, trafficking in drugs or weapons – there have been tragic situations in other countries in which migrants died of suffocation in lorries or drowned at sea, leading to charges of aggravated homicide for traffickers. Some networks are also involved in drug or arms trafficking, using migrant routes as cover (the so-called poly-criminality of organised groups).
For this reason, investigative authorities look at the entire spectrum of associated offences in order to comprehensively dismantle criminal groups.
Legal issues and controversial aspects
Migrant smuggling vs. “voluntary illegal migration”
Criminal law does not punish migrants for merely attempting to cross the border illegally. At most, they may incur administrative fines for breaching border regulations or be subject to return/expulsion measures, but they are not active subjects of the migrant smuggling offence.
Questions can nevertheless arise as to when a migrant might become an accomplice in his/her own illegal crossing or that of others. For example, if several migrants group together and cross the border without a guide, can they be charged with some form of criminal association?
The general answer in law and under the UN Protocol is “no”: migrants are the beneficiaries (even if voluntary) of the offence and should not be assimilated to smugglers. Any contrary interpretation would lead to absurd situations in which two migrants helping each other to cross would each be both perpetrator and “victim” of the same offence. Romanian judicial practice reflects this approach: in cases where a migrant was initially charged as an accomplice (for helping to open vehicle doors, distribute water, guide others through a field, etc.) prosecutors often dropped the charges or courts acquitted, taking into account the person’s vulnerable status and the absence of a profit-making motive.
International judicial cooperation
Migrant smuggling tests the capacity of justice systems to work together across borders. Instruments such as the European Arrest Warrant, the European Investigation Order, mutual legal assistance, extraditions and the transfer of proceedings are used routinely in these cases. Practical problems include coordinating parallel investigations (for instance, when members of the same group operate in Romania, Serbia and Germany, and each country opens its own file) and deciding whether it is more efficient to concentrate all proceedings in one jurisdiction or to run coordinated but separate cases.
Eurojust plays a key role in resolving such issues, helping prosecutors decide where to centralise proceedings and how to share evidence, while ensuring that smuggling networks are prosecuted as a whole and not just in a fragmented manner.
Competence of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office (EPPO)
A question raised after EPPO became operational in 2021 is whether it could take over migrant smuggling cases. At present, the answer is negative: EPPO’s mandate is limited to offences affecting the EU’s financial interests (fraud with EU funds, cross-border VAT fraud above certain thresholds, etc.), under Regulation (EU) 2017/1939. Although transnational, migrant smuggling does not in itself fall into this category, as it does not directly cause financial damage to the EU budget. Nevertheless, where smuggling intersects with fraud schemes involving EU funds or cross-border VAT fraud, EPPO could have a derivative interest.
Rights of the accused and possible defences
Persons accused of migrant smuggling benefit from all the guarantees of a fair trial, as in any criminal case. However, certain specific issues arise in practice:
- the right to an interpreter and translation, as many defendants are foreign nationals (e.g. Serbian, Turkish or Arab citizens operating in Romania), requiring translation of procedural documents and ensuring effective defence in their mother tongue;
- the complexity of cases, which often involve large volumes of intercepted communications, video surveillance, statements from numerous witnesses (sometimes obtained via mutual legal assistance) and cross-border evidence.
Defence strategies frequently challenge the legality of technical surveillance (arguing that DIICOT or intelligence warrants were invalid) or the legality of searches. High courts have been called upon to resolve points of law such as whether allowing migrants to cross the border under police surveillance, in order to catch the entire network, constitutes unlawful entrapment. The answer has been that it does not, as long as the initiative of the offence originates with the smugglers and the authorities merely monitor and, if necessary, delay intervention to identify all accomplices. In such circumstances, this is a lawful investigative technique, not provocation.
Cooperation with the authorities by defendants – providing information, pointing to hiding places, identifying collaborators – can also be relevant when sentencing, allowing judges to treat it as a mitigating factor and impose reduced penalties.
Conclusions
Legislative prospects
In the near future, further legislative changes are likely at both EU and national level. At EU level, discussions continue on reforming the legal framework governing facilitation of irregular migration, clarifying the scope of criminalisation and humanitarian exemptions. Romania will, in turn, have to adapt its national law to these developments while maintaining the balance between security imperatives and the protection of fundamental rights.
Real criminal risks in migrant smuggling cases
For those involved in such activities, the criminal risks are very real. Migrant smuggling is not a “minor” offence: under Romanian law, penalties can reach up to 10 years’ imprisonment (and even higher where offences are in concurrence with human trafficking, organised crime or homicide). The involvement of organised groups, the transnational dimension and the increasing intensity of cross-border cooperation mean that those who participate – even “only as drivers” – face a significant risk of ending up in prison for a long time. At the same time, vehicles and other assets can be confiscated, and criminal records have serious long-term consequences for a person’s life.
Overall conclusion
Migrant smuggling is a serious offence which, in 2025, is at the centre of legislative and judicial concern at both national and European level. Romania has a legal framework aligned with international standards, and the practice of prosecution authorities shows determination in combating networks that profit from migrants. Nevertheless, the fight is far from being won: as long as economic disparities and conflicts generate migration, there will be smugglers willing to break the law for profit.
The response must remain firm, internationally coordinated and nuanced, with full respect for human rights. From a legal perspective, lawyers, judges and legislators will continue to face dilemmas such as defining the limits of liability, striking the right balance between punishment and prevention, protecting collateral victims and adapting the law to new modes of operation adopted by smugglers. Article 263 of the Criminal Code remains the main weapon in this field – one which, used judiciously and in consonance with international instruments, can contribute to deterring this dangerous phenomenon and to maintaining the rule of law at the borders of Romania and of the European Union.
Selective bibliography
- Romanian Criminal Code (Law no. 286/2009), Articles 263–264 – Migrant smuggling and facilitating illegal stay.
- Decision of the Constitutional Court no. 40/2019 (Case 825D/2016) – rejection of the exception of unconstitutionality of Article 263 CC.
- UN Protocol against the Smuggling of Migrants by Land, Sea and Air (New York, 2000) – ratified by Romania through Law no. 565/2002.
- DIICOT Press Release, 03.09.2024 – dismantling of a migrant smuggling network on the RO–HU–IT route.
- Council of the European Union – “Combating the smuggling of migrants” (information page, 2025).
- Eurojust – Annual Meeting on Migrant Smuggling 2024 (press release, 22.11.2024).
- ProTV News (18.10.2017) – sentencing of migrant smugglers in Germany.
- Vie-publique.fr – “Du délit de solidarité au principe de fraternité” (7 March 2022).
- U.S. Department of Justice – Press Release (11.03.2024) – conviction for smuggling at the US–Mexico border.
- UNODC – “Global Study on Smuggling of Migrants” (2018).
[1] [2] [3] [44] [45] [47] [48] [58] [60] Combating the illegal introduction of migrants and trafficking in human beings – Consilium
https://www.consilium.europa.eu/ro/policies/migrant-smuggling-human-trafficking/
[4] [6] [7] Migrant smuggling Art. 263 Criminal Code 2025
https://e-juridic.manager.ro/codul-penal/titlu-13/capitol-42/sectiune-0/articol-268.html
[5] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [42] [43] DECISION 40 22/01/2019 – Legislative Portal
https://legislatie.just.ro/Public/DetaliiDocument/214026
[16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [22] [23] DIICOT: 15 persons detained following searches carried out in a migrant smuggling case – AGERPRES
https://agerpres.ro/2024/09/03/diicot-15-persoane-retinute-in-urma-perchezitiilor-efectuate-intr-un-dosar-de-trafic-de-migranti–1349186
[21] Persons investigated for organised criminal group and trafficking of …
https://www.mai.gov.ro/persoane-cercetate-pentru-grup-infractional-organizat-si-trafic-de-migranti/
[24] [25] [PDF] CASE-LAW BULLETIN – Portal Just
https://portal.just.ro/36/Documents/BULETINUL_JURISPRUDENTEI/AN_2019/Buletinul%20jurisprudentei%20penal%202019.pdf
[26] Defence in cases of illegal stay under § 96 Residence Act
https://www.mariodujmovic.de/rechtsgebiete/illegaler_aufenthalt.html
[27] Smuggling crime – Wikipedia
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schleusungskriminalit%C3%A4t
[28] [29] [30] [31] Romanians convicted in Germany for migrant smuggling. How much money they collected from refugees – Știrile ProTV
https://stirileprotv.ro/stiri/international/romani-condamnac-i-in-germania-pentru-trafic-de-migranc-i-cac-i-bani-au-incasat-de-la-refugiac-i.html
[32] [34] [35] [36] From the offence of solidarity to the principle of fraternity: laws and controversies | vie-publique.fr
https://www.vie-publique.fr/eclairage/18715-du-delit-de-solidarite-au-principe-de-fraternite-lois-et-controverses
[33] Assistance with the irregular entry, movement and stay (Articles L823 …)
https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/codes/section_lc/LEGITEXT000006070158/LEGISCTA000042773782/
[37] [39] [40] [41] [56] Southern District of Texas | Former federal officer admits to smuggling aliens and receiving bribes to allow cocaine across the border | United States Department of Justice
https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdtx/pr/former-federal-officer-admits-smuggling-aliens-and-receiving-bribes-allow-cocaine
[38] 8 U.S.C. § 1324 | Bringing in and harboring aliens law
https://www.keglawyers.com/harboring-illegal-aliens
[46] [49] [50] [53] [59] Unaccompanied minors and challenges in the digital domain on agenda at annual meeting on migrant smuggling | Eurojust | European Union Agency for Criminal Justice Cooperation
https://www.eurojust.europa.eu/news/unaccompanied-minors-and-challenges-digital-domain-agenda-annual-meeting-migrant-smuggling
[51] Irregular border crossings into EU drop sharply in 2024 – Frontex
https://www.frontex.europa.eu/media-centre/news/news-release/irregular-border-crossings-into-eu-drop-sharply-in-2024-oqpweX
[52] Border management – Statewatch |
https://www.statewatch.org/outsourcing-borders-monitoring-eu-externalisation-policy/bulletin-9/border-management/
[54] Smuggling network moving nearly 900 migrants dismantled | Eurojust
https://www.eurojust.europa.eu/news/smuggling-network-moving-nearly-900-migrants-dismantled
[55] 6 arrested for smuggling migrants from Türkiye to France and Germany
https://www.europol.europa.eu/media-press/newsroom/news/6-arrested-for-smuggling-migrants-turkiye-to-france-and-germany
[57] Migrant smuggling – what it is and who to turn to for help
https://buneciandbuneci.ro/2023/03/09/traficul-de-migranti-ce-este-si-la-cine-apelezi-pentru-ajutor/