The Offence of Taking Bribes in Romanian Criminal Law: Definition, Elements and Legal Consequences

This article is for general information only and does not constitute legal advice. Any concrete case must be assessed individually together with a qualified lawyer.

1. Why is taking bribes a “strategic” offence in the Romanian criminal system?

In Romanian criminal law, the offence of taking bribes is one of the core corruption offences. It is regulated by Article 289 of the Romanian Criminal Code, in Title V – “Offences of corruption and office-related offences”. This placement in the structure of the Criminal Code shows that the legislator sees taking bribes as central to the protection of the integrity of public office and the proper exercise of public duties.

The offence punishes situations where a public official requests, receives or accepts the promise of money or other undue advantages, directly or indirectly, for themselves or for another, in connection with the performance or non-performance of an act falling within their duties, or in connection with the performance of an act contrary to those duties. The text expressly enumerates several alternative ways of committing the offence (requesting, receiving, accepting a promise), which allows a wide range of factual scenarios to be captured in practice.

At international level, Romania is a State Party to the United Nations Convention against Corruption (UNCAC), which obliges States to criminalise the bribery of national and foreign public officials, as well as related corruption offences. Romania is also party to the Council of Europe Criminal Law Convention on Corruption and is evaluated by GRECO (Group of States against Corruption) regarding its anti-corruption measures.

On the European and global scene, various indicators confirm that corruption remains a very sensitive issue. Transparency International’s Corruption Perceptions Index shows Romania below the EU average in recent years, while Eurobarometer surveys conducted by the European Commission indicate that a large majority of citizens and companies perceive corruption as widespread. Against this background, the criminal offence of taking bribes remains a priority for the Romanian prosecution services and courts.

2. National legal framework: Article 289 Criminal Code and Law no. 78/2000

2.1. Statutory definition and punishment

Article 289 of the Criminal Code defines taking bribes as the act of the public official who, directly or indirectly, for themselves or for another, requests or receives money or other undue benefits, or accepts the promise of such benefits, in connection with:

• the performance of an act that falls within their duties;
• the non-performance of an act that falls within their duties;
• the speeding up or delaying of the performance of such an act; or
• the performance of an act contrary to their official duties.

The punishment provided by law is imprisonment from 3 to 10 years and a ban on the right to hold a public office or to exercise the profession or activity in the exercise of which the offence was committed. The ban on rights is a mandatory complementary penalty, and the court sets its precise duration based on the concrete seriousness of the offence and the personal circumstances of the defendant, in accordance with the general rules in the Criminal Code.

Article 289 paragraph (3) provides that money, valuables or any other goods received as bribes shall be confiscated. If they are no longer available in kind, the court orders confiscation by equivalent, i.e. the payment of a sum of money corresponding to their value. This special confiscation applies even when the assets have been transferred to third parties, as long as their illicit origin can be proven.

In certain cases, especially where there is a clear disproportion between a convicted person’s wealth and their lawful income, the court may also apply extended confiscation under Article 112¹ of the Criminal Code. This allows the confiscation of assets acquired over a certain period which cannot be justified by legitimate income and are suspected of originating from criminal activities, including corruption offences.

2.2. Law no. 78/2000 and the status of “corruption offence”

Law no. 78/2000 on preventing, discovering and sanctioning corruption offences complements the Criminal Code by providing a special framework for the investigation and punishment of corruption. It applies, among others, to persons who exercise public functions or decision-making powers within public authorities, institutions or economic operators with state capital.

Article 5 paragraph (1) of Law no. 78/2000 expressly states that the offences provided by Articles 289–292 of the Criminal Code (taking bribes, giving bribes, influence peddling and buying influence) are corruption offences, including when they are committed by persons assimilated to public officials under Article 308 of the Criminal Code. This classification has important consequences in terms of jurisdiction, procedural rules and competence of specialised prosecution offices (in particular the National Anticorruption Directorate – DNA).

2.3. Relationship with other corruption offences

Taking bribes is closely linked with other offences in the same chapter:

• Giving bribes – Article 290 Criminal Code: the person who promises, offers or gives undue advantages to a public official. The law provides for a specific regime whereby the bribe-giver who denounces the offence before the authorities are notified may be exempted from criminal liability.
• Influence peddling – Article 291 Criminal Code: the person who claims or receives undue benefits, or accepts the promise thereof, in exchange for intervening on a public official.
• Buying influence – Article 292 Criminal Code: the person who promises, offers or gives undue benefits in order to buy influence over a public official.

All these offences are expressly classified as corruption offences under Law no. 78/2000, which brings them under stricter anticorruption mechanisms and specialised investigative structures, particularly where high-level officials, substantial amounts or serious consequences for public institutions are involved.

3. Who can commit the offence? The notion of “public official”

3.1. Article 175 Criminal Code – public official

The active subject of the offence of taking bribes is, in its standard form, the public official. Article 289 refers to Article 175 of the Criminal Code, which defines a public official as, in essence, a person who:

• exercises, permanently or temporarily, with or without remuneration, duties established by law in order to achieve the prerogatives of the legislative, executive or judicial powers; or
• exercises a public function of any kind; or
• exercises duties related to the object of activity of a legal person of public interest.

Paragraph (2) of Article 175 extends the notion of public official to any person who exercises a public-interest service, for which they were invested by a public authority or which is subject to the control or supervision of such an authority. This covers, for example, staff in public hospitals, public schools or other public services, even if they are not classical “civil servants” in the administrative law sense.

3.2. Article 308 Criminal Code – persons assimilated to public officials

Article 308 of the Criminal Code extends the application of corruption and office-related offences to certain persons who are not public officials in the strict sense but perform comparable functions in the private sector (for instance, in private companies or entities managing public funds, under certain conditions). In such cases the limits of the penalty are reduced by one third, but the act remains a corruption offence under Law no. 78/2000.

This extension is particularly important in practice: individuals working in regulated private sectors (for example, healthcare services provided by private hospitals under contracts with public insurance systems) may fall within the scope of anti-corruption offences when they perform a public-interest service under the control or supervision of a public authority.

4. Constituent elements of the offence of taking bribes

4.1. Protected legal interest

The general legal interest protected is the public trust in the integrity and impartiality of public office. The legislator seeks to safeguard not only the actual correctness of administrative or judicial decisions, but also the perception that such decisions are taken in the public interest and not “for a price”.

The specific legal interest is the trust-based relationship between citizens and public institutions or public-interest services. If the public perceives that decisions can be “bought”, this undermines the rule of law, discourages lawful behaviour and encourages informal or illegal practices (for example, “envelope” payments in healthcare or education).

4.2. Objective element: requesting, receiving or accepting a promise

The material element of taking bribes consists of any of the following alternative acts:

• Requesting money or other undue advantages – the public official asks, explicitly or implicitly, for a benefit in connection with their duties;
• Receiving money or other undue advantages – the advantage actually reaches the public official or a person indicated by them;
• Accepting the promise of such advantages – the public official agrees to the offer, even if the advantage has not yet been delivered.

In Romanian criminal doctrine and case-law, the mere acceptance of the promise is sufficient for the offence to be complete; there is no need for actual receipt of the money or goods. Many practical cases start from early stages of “negotiation” or informal agreements, often documented through audio-video recordings or the statements of cooperating witnesses.

Equally important is the connection with the public official’s duties. The advantage must be requested, received or accepted in connection with:

• performing an act that falls within the official’s duties;
• not performing an act that falls within their duties;
• speeding up or delaying the performance of such an act; or
• performing an act contrary to their duties.

If there is no connection between the advantage and the official’s duties, the conduct may fall outside Article 289 and may be analysed under other legal provisions (for example, fraud or other patrimonial offences), depending on the case.

The law also explicitly covers situations where the bribe is requested or received “for oneself or for another” and “directly or indirectly”. Thus, the offence is committed even when the public official uses intermediaries (e.g. relatives, associates) or directs the advantage to a third person or an entity (such as a company controlled by the official).

4.3. Subjective element: intent

Taking bribes can only be committed with intent, usually direct intent: the public official is aware that they are receiving or accepting undue advantages in connection with their public duties and pursues or accepts the consequence of obtaining those benefits. Genuine mistake about the undue nature of the advantage or about the connection with the public duties could in principle exclude intent, but such situations are rare and must be convincingly proven.

The case-law of the European Court of Human Rights, in cases dealing with undercover operations and entrapment (for example Ramanauskas v. Lithuania and Constantin and Stoian v. Romania), emphasises that national courts must verify whether the accused was genuinely predisposed to commit the offence or whether they were pushed into committing it by undercover agents. Excessive police incitement may affect the existence of intent and may lead to a violation of the right to a fair trial under Article 6 ECHR.

5. Forms of commission and particular issues in practice

5.1. Single act, repeated acts and continued offence

The offence of taking bribes may be committed through a single act (one request or one receipt of a bribe), but also through repeated acts over time – for example, where a public official receives regular payments in exchange for favouring a particular company in public procurement procedures.

Romanian case-law, including that of the High Court of Cassation and Justice, has analysed situations where, on different dates, several alternative actions of the same incrimination (requesting, accepting a promise, receiving) were carried out in relation to the same corrupt agreement. Courts may qualify such conduct as a single offence or as a continued offence (Article 35 Criminal Code), with a significant impact on sentencing.

5.2. Attempt and preparatory acts

Preparatory acts (for instance vague discussions, without an actual request, receipt or clear acceptance of a promise) are generally not punishable. The offence becomes complete at the moment when the official requests or accepts the promise of a benefit; therefore, in most practical situations there is no room for an independent attempt in the technical sense of Romanian criminal law.

5.3. Participation

In addition to the public official, other participants may be involved in cases of taking bribes:

• the instigator – the person who determines the official to accept a bribe;
• the accomplice – a person who facilitates meetings, transfers money or helps conceal the flow of funds.

These participants can be held liable as co-perpetrators, instigators or accomplices under the general rules on participation in the Criminal Code. At the same time, the person who pays the bribe will normally be prosecuted under Article 290 Criminal Code (giving bribes), which has its own rules, including the special cause for exemption from punishment in case of self-reporting before the authorities are notified.

6. Legal consequences for the offender

6.1. Main and complementary penalties

As already mentioned, the main penalty for taking bribes is imprisonment from 3 to 10 years, plus the mandatory complementary penalty of banning the right to hold a public office or to exercise the profession/activity in the exercise of which the offence was committed.

Depending on the circumstances (amount of the bribe, position of the official, consequences of the act, conduct during the investigation and trial, previous convictions), courts may:

• apply a sentence closer to the minimum legal limit (for example, where the bribe amount is relatively low and the offender has no criminal record);
• apply a sentence near the maximum statutory limit (for instance, when the offence involves high-ranking officials, large sums or serious consequences for public services);
• order additional bans on rights under Articles 66–68 of the Criminal Code, such as the right to be elected, to occupy management positions or to exercise specific professional activities.

In practice, statistics and annual reports from the National Anticorruption Directorate and the Public Ministry show that courts often impose custodial sentences with actual imprisonment in serious corruption cases, especially where senior officials or judges are involved.

6.2. Confiscation and extended confiscation

Money, valuables or any other goods received as bribes are subject to special confiscation under Article 289 paragraph (3) and Article 112 Criminal Code. Where the goods cannot be identified, the court orders confiscation by equivalent – a sum of money corresponding to their value.

Extended confiscation under Article 112¹ may be ordered if the conditions set out in that article are met: significant disproportionality between the convicted person’s wealth and their lawful income, and serious indications that assets originate from criminal activities. This measure may also target assets transferred to family members or entities controlled by the offender.

At EU level, Regulation (EU) 2018/1805 on the mutual recognition of freezing and confiscation orders facilitates the cross-border enforcement of confiscation measures. This is particularly relevant in corruption cases where proceeds have been transferred abroad or invested in assets located in other Member States.

6.3. Professional and disciplinary consequences

Conviction for taking bribes normally leads to:

• loss of office or professional status (dismissal from civil service, removal from the judiciary, striking off the roll of regulated professions such as lawyers, doctors, accountants, etc.);
• ban on holding public office or exercising the profession/activity in which the offence was committed, for the duration of the complementary penalty imposed by the court;
• disciplinary proceedings before the relevant professional body or authority, which may lead to additional sanctions.

GRECO and European Commission reports have repeatedly underlined the need for effective, proportionate and dissuasive sanctions in corruption cases, including strong disciplinary responses for persons holding leadership positions or sensitive public functions.

6.4. Civil, tax and reputational impact

Beyond the criminal sentence, the offender may face:

• civil liability – through the civil action joined to the criminal case or in separate civil proceedings, for the damage caused;
• tax reassessments – if unjustified assets are treated as undeclared income, with the corresponding tax consequences;
• serious reputational damage – including difficulty in reintegrating into the labour market, loss of trust from partners and clients, and disqualification from certain public contracts or positions.

7. Sensitive procedural aspects: undercover operations, informants and entrapment

Corruption investigations frequently rely on:

• undercover investigators and cooperating witnesses;
• informants and whistle-blowers who report bribe schemes;
• technical surveillance (audio-video recordings, interception of communications) authorised under the Code of Criminal Procedure.

ECtHR case-law (notably Ramanauskas v. Lithuania and Constantin and Stoian v. Romania) draws a clear line between legitimate undercover operations and prohibited entrapment. National courts are required to check whether:

• there were objective indications of the accused’s predisposition to commit corruption; and
• the authorities did not go beyond passive investigation and did not create or substantially intensify the criminal activity.

In this context, anyone accused of taking bribes should, together with their lawyer, carefully analyse:

• the authorisation acts for special investigative measures (decisions of the prosecutor, approval by the judge of rights and liberties);
• the nature and limits of undercover interventions or cooperation agreements; and
• the coherence and completeness of audio-video recordings and transcripts.

8. Romania within the international anti-corruption architecture

Romania is part of a complex international and European anti-corruption framework:

• the United Nations Convention against Corruption (UNCAC) – requiring States to criminalise bribery of national and foreign public officials and to adopt preventive and asset recovery measures;
• the Council of Europe Criminal Law Convention on Corruption and GRECO monitoring – which assess the effectiveness of anti-corruption policies and legal frameworks;
• the EU Convention on the fight against corruption involving officials of the European Communities or officials of Member States – harmonising the criminalisation of bribery of EU and national officials;
• the OECD Anti-Bribery Convention, to which Romania has acceded, concerning the bribery of foreign public officials in international business transactions.

These instruments influence the interpretation and application of Articles 289–292 Criminal Code, especially in cases with cross-border dimensions (EU funds, international public procurement, transnational business operations) and in matters of international cooperation and asset recovery.

9. Statistical and case-law trends

According to annual reports of the National Anticorruption Directorate and the Public Ministry, Romanian courts consistently handle a significant number of corruption cases every year, including numerous indictments for taking and giving bribes, influence peddling and related offences. These reports typically provide data on:

• the number of defendants indicted and convicted;
• the types of positions involved (from lower-level officers to high-level officials and magistrates);
• the types and length of sentences pronounced; and
• the total value of assets frozen and confiscated.

At the perception level, Transparency International’s CPI and Eurobarometer surveys reflect persistent concern among Romanian citizens and businesses about corruption, which in turn maintains strong public pressure on prosecutors and courts to firmly sanction corruption offences.

10. Practical recommendations for persons suspected or accused of taking bribes

In corruption cases, the first 24–48 hours after the initiation of criminal proceedings (searches, arrests, hearings) are crucial for protecting the rights of the person concerned. As a general guideline:

1. Immediately exercise the right to a lawyer
   Anyone summoned for questioning, subjected to searches or detention has the right to be assisted by a lawyer from the very first investigative act. Refusing or delaying consultation with a lawyer can have irreversible consequences for the defence strategy.
2. Be cautious in giving statements
   Any statement may be used later in court. It is essential to fully understand the accusation and the evidence already collected and to discuss with a lawyer before deciding whether to give statements, to remain silent, to admit the facts or to challenge certain elements (for example, the existence of intent or the link with the public duties).
3. Carefully analyse undercover operations and informant activity
   The defence should check whether the legal requirements for special investigative techniques have been complied with, whether there was any undue incitement or entrapment, and whether the evidence (recordings, transcripts) is complete and reliable.
4. Assess the risks of confiscation and the patrimonial situation
   Given the importance of special and extended confiscation in corruption cases, it is vital to discuss early on the risks for personal and family assets and to consider the possibility of justifying certain assets or contesting their alleged illicit origin.
5. Consider lawful forms of cooperation and procedural strategies
   Depending on the stage of the proceedings and the strength of the evidence, simplified procedures (such as a guilty plea procedure) or forms of cooperation with the authorities may be considered, but always within the limits of the right to a fair trial and only after a careful cost–benefit analysis with a specialised defence lawyer.

11. Conclusions

The offence of taking bribes, as regulated by Article 289 of the Romanian Criminal Code and the special anticorruption legislation, is one of the most serious criminal offences in Romanian law. It entails not only the risk of lengthy custodial sentences and bans on rights, but also extensive confiscation measures, professional disqualification and long-term reputational damage.

At the same time, Romania’s integration in the international anti-corruption architecture (UNCAC, Council of Europe conventions, EU instruments, OECD Anti-Bribery Convention, GRECO evaluations) leads to a high level of scrutiny over how corruption offences are investigated, prosecuted and punished. Courts must strike a careful balance between effective enforcement and full respect for fundamental rights, including the prohibition of entrapment and the guarantee of a fair trial.

For anyone facing allegations of taking bribes, consulting a defence lawyer specialised in criminal law and corruption cases is not a luxury but an essential step. Only an individualised legal analysis can clarify the actual risks (in terms of punishment, confiscation, professional status and reputation) and help build a coherent defence strategy adapted to the specifics of the case.

This article is a general guide and does not replace individual legal advice. For a concrete assessment of your situation (risks of conviction and confiscation, possible procedural defences and strategies), you should consult directly with a qualified criminal lawyer.