1. Why the difference between simple theft and qualified theft matters
At first glance, for someone investigated or charged, the difference between “simple theft” and “qualified theft” may look like a purely technical nuance. In reality, the legal classification radically changes the stakes of the case.
For the defendant, the qualification as qualified theft influences:
- The minimum and maximum prison terms that the court can impose.
- Whether settlement between the parties can still extinguish criminal liability.
- How a judge perceives the seriousness and dangerousness of the conduct.
For the victim, the way the facts are legally framed influences the way the case will be handled, the pressure on the perpetrator to repair the damage, and the overall chances of recovering the loss.
Key takeaway: very often the real battle in a theft file is not whether a theft occurred at all, but whether we are dealing with simple theft or with qualified theft under Article 229 of the Criminal Code.
2. Legal framework: simple theft, qualified theft and related offences
2.1. Simple theft – Article 228 Criminal Code
Article 228 of the Romanian Criminal Code defines theft as the taking of a movable asset from the possession or detention of another person, without that person’s consent, with the intention of unlawfully appropriating it. The basic penalty range is imprisonment from 6 months to 3 years or a criminal fine.
This is the general model of the offence. Qualified theft is not a separate offence but the same theft, committed in circumstances that the legislator considers more dangerous.
2.2. Qualified theft – Article 229 Criminal Code
Article 229 of the Criminal Code lists the situations in which theft becomes qualified theft and substantially increases the penalty limits. The provision is structured on three levels of gravity:
- Paragraph (1): focus on the circumstances of commission (public transport, at night, masked offender, breaking and entering, use of fake keys, disabling alarm systems, etc.).
- Paragraph (2): focus on specific locations or situations (breaking into a dwelling or professional premises, having a weapon on the offender, goods belonging to the national cultural heritage).
- Paragraph (3): focus on especially sensitive categories of goods or installations (oil products, electricity networks, telecommunications cables, equipment used for emergency interventions, traffic safety installations, and so on).
2.3. Theft for use – Article 230 Criminal Code
Article 230 regulates theft for use when the object is a vehicle and the purpose is not permanent appropriation but temporary use – for example, taking someone’s car without consent just to drive it. The legal penalty is that of Article 228 or 229, but the limits are reduced by one third.
3. Quick checklist: are we dealing with qualified theft?
If you want a rapid first impression of whether a theft situation is likely to be treated as qualified theft, ask yourself the following questions. Each “yes” increases the risk of a classification under Article 229.
- Did the theft take place in a means of public transport?
- Did it happen during the night?
- Was the offender masked, disguised or cross‑dressed so as to hide their identity?
- Was there breaking and entering, climbing, or the use of a genuine or fake key without right?
- Was an alarm or surveillance system neutralised or disabled (including anti‑theft tags)?
- Did the theft involve trespassing into a dwelling or professional premises?
- Did the stolen goods belong to the cultural heritage or to critical infrastructure (energy, telecoms, emergency systems)?
- Did the offender have a weapon on them at the time of the theft?
If you answer “yes” to at least one of these questions, there is a real possibility that the case will be treated as qualified theft rather than simple theft.
4. When is theft qualified: situations under Article 229 paragraph (1)
4.1. Theft in a means of public transport
The first qualified theft hypothesis covers theft committed in a means of public transport: bus, tram, trolleybus, underground, train, ferry or any other vehicle intended to transport several people at once.
Legal literature has consistently argued that taxis are generally not considered public transport in this sense, because they are not used by an undifferentiated public at a standard fare, but carry individual clients or small groups.
Typical examples:
- A wallet stolen from a passenger in a crowded bus during the journey.
- A phone taken from a backpack in the metro, while the train is moving.
- A wallet taken from the back seat of a taxi while the driver is distracted – usually treated as simple theft, not qualified theft based on public transport.
4.2. Theft committed during the night
The Criminal Code does not define “night‑time”, but case‑law usually links it to the interval between sunset and sunrise. In practice, courts look not only at the formal time, but also at the concrete conditions: degree of darkness, lighting of the area, level of street activity and so on.
The rationale behind the aggravating circumstance is that night‑time makes it easier for the offender to act and harder for the victim or witnesses to observe or resist the theft.
Illustrative scenarios:
- At 3 a.m., in an unlit area, someone forces the door of a shop and removes goods from inside – typically qualified theft at night.
- At 9 p.m. on a summer evening in a very bright, crowded area, a thief takes a wallet from a handbag – the analysis is more nuanced and may lead to simple theft, depending on the circumstances.
4.3. Theft committed by a masked, disguised or cross‑dressed person
This circumstance targets situations where the offender deliberately conceals their identity by using masks, hoods, wigs, heavy make‑up or other means that hinder recognition.
The COVID‑19 pandemic raised an interesting question: if everyone is legally required to wear a face mask, can theft still be regarded as committed by a masked person? Recent case‑law of the High Court of Cassation and Justice has suggested that the answer depends on the concrete effect: if the combination of mask, cap, hood or glasses makes recognition significantly more difficult, the aggravating circumstance may still apply.
Examples:
- An offender wearing a medical mask, a cap pulled low and a hood, whose face cannot be seen on CCTV – high likelihood of the “masked person” aggravation being retained.
- An offender wearing only a standard medical mask, clearly recognised by clerks and captured in detail by cameras – the court may conclude that the mask did not materially hinder identification.
4.4. Theft by breaking and entering, climbing or using a key without right
This is probably the most frequent scenario of qualified theft. The law lists several modalities:
- Breaking and entering – the destruction, forcing or removal of a material obstacle (door, lock, window, padlock).
- Climbing – surmounting an obstacle such as a fence, wall, balcony or roof to gain access.
- Using a genuine key without right – the key is real, but the person no longer has the owner’s consent to use it (for example a former employee or tenant who kept a copy).
- Using a fake key – any device or tool that serves the function of a key, even if improvised (including electronic gadgets).
Recent case‑law of the High Court has held that devices which jam or intercept the signal of a car’s remote locking system may qualify as “fake keys”. In practice, the thief does not physically break the lock, but prevents the car from locking and then takes the goods from inside – yet the law treats this similarly to forcing the lock.
Typical situations:
- Breaking a padlock on a shed to steal tools – breaking and entering.
- Climbing over a fence into a yard to access a storage area – climbing.
- Using a key kept after the end of an employment or tenancy relationship, without the owner’s knowledge – using a genuine key without right.
- Using an electronic device to block the locking of a car, then removing valuables from inside – use of a fake key.
4.5. Theft by disabling an alarm or surveillance system
Here, the law does not refer only to traditional alarm panels and CCTV cameras. The High Court has clarified that removing or destroying an anti‑theft tag attached to goods in a shop can amount to disabling an alarm system.
The idea is that the offender actively neutralises the security mechanism that would otherwise signal the theft.
Examples:
- A customer who goes into the fitting room, tears off the anti‑theft tag from a jacket, hides the jacket under their clothes and leaves the shop without paying – qualified theft.
- An offender who sprays paint over CCTV lenses or covers them with tape before entering a warehouse – usually qualified theft, possibly in combination with other offences.
5. When is theft qualified: situations under Article 229 paragraph (2)
5.1. Theft of assets belonging to the cultural heritage
If the stolen goods are part of the national cultural heritage – paintings, icons, archaeological treasures, historical artefacts – the law treats the theft as more serious, regardless of the purely financial value of the items. What is protected is not only private property but also the public interest in preserving culture.
5.2. Theft committed by breaking into a dwelling or professional premises
This hypothesis combines theft with an intrusion into a protected private space. The legislator gives special weight to the violation of a person’s home or of the premises where a professional activity is carried out.
Recent decisions of the High Court have clarified that commercial spaces such as shops or offices can qualify as “professional premises” even when closed to the public at the time, provided they are the place where the company’s internal life takes place.
Practical examples:
- Breaking into a closed shop at night and stealing goods from the shelves.
- Entering a law office after hours and stealing computers or files.
- Climbing into a private apartment through a window and taking jewellery while the owners are away.
5.3. Theft committed by a person carrying a weapon
For this aggravating circumstance it is not necessary that the weapon be actually used. It is enough that the offender has a weapon on them at the time, which signals a high potential risk of escalation.
If the weapon is used to threaten or assault the victim, the conduct usually crosses the line into robbery – a separate and even more severe offence.
6. Qualified theft involving “sensitive” goods – Article 229 paragraph (3)
Paragraph (3) gathers a list of goods and installations whose theft can affect not just the direct owner but the functioning of essential services or the safety of many people.
Among the protected categories are:
- Oil products taken from pipelines, depots or tankers.
- Components of irrigation systems.
- Components of electricity networks.
- Vehicles and equipment used for firefighting or other emergency interventions.
- Installations that ensure traffic safety and control (rail, road, naval, air).
- Telecommunications and radiocommunications cables and equipment.
In these cases, the penalty range is imprisonment from 3 to 10 years, placing the offence in the category of serious crimes against property and public safety.
7. Penalties for qualified theft – quick comparison with simple theft
A simplified comparison of the main penalty ranges looks like this:
- Simple theft (Article 228): imprisonment from 6 months to 3 years or a fine.
- Qualified theft – paragraph (1): imprisonment from 1 to 5 years.
- Qualified theft – paragraph (2): imprisonment from 2 to 7 years.
- Qualified theft – paragraph (3): imprisonment from 3 to 10 years.
The jump from a 6‑month minimum to a 3‑year or even 5‑year minimum can be decisive. It affects bail and preventive measures, the practical chances of a suspended sentence, and the way the file is prioritised by prosecutors and courts.
8. Settlement between the parties: does it still work for qualified theft?
8.1. The current rule
Article 231 paragraph (2) of the Criminal Code currently provides that settlement between the parties extinguishes criminal liability only for offences under Articles 228 and 230 – that is, simple theft and, in some cases, theft for use.
Qualified theft under Article 229 is no longer on the list of offences for which settlement has this effect. As a result, even if the victim is fully compensated and declares that they have no further claims, the criminal proceedings for qualified theft may continue and lead to a conviction.
8.2. Practical consequences
For a defendant charged with qualified theft, this has concrete strategic implications:
- Defence efforts often focus on disputing the aggravating elements, aiming to re‑classify the facts as simple theft.
- Full compensation of the damage and reconciliation with the victim remain relevant for the judge when individualising the sentence, even if they no longer extinguish the offence.
- Where the evidence is overwhelming, a plea bargain (agreement of admission of guilt) may be considered to obtain a mitigated penalty within the qualified theft framework.
9. Concrete examples: simple theft or qualified theft?
9.1. Phone stolen in a crowded bus
A passenger travels on a crowded bus during rush hour. When getting off, they realise that their phone has disappeared from their jacket pocket. CCTV footage shows someone standing behind them and discreetly taking the phone.
Key elements for classification:
- Theft in a means of public transport.
- No physical violence or threat.
- Classic pickpocketing modus operandi.
In such a scenario, the conduct will almost always be treated as qualified theft under Article 229 paragraph (1) regarding public transport.
9.2. Breaking into a garden shed at night
An offender climbs over a fence, forces the padlock of a garden shed and steals power tools. The incident occurs around 2:30 a.m. in a poorly lit residential area.
Possible aggravating elements:
- Climbing over the fence – climbing.
- Breaking the padlock – breaking and entering.
- Night‑time – theft at night.
Depending on the configuration of the property, the shed may even be considered an annex of the dwelling, bringing into discussion the hypothesis of breaking into a dwelling or its appurtenances.
9.3. Clothing stolen from a shop after removing the anti‑theft tag
A customer enters a fashion store, goes into the fitting room with a jacket, removes the security tag with a tool, hides the jacket under their own coat and exits the store without paying.
Elements to note:
- Professional premises (shop).
- Deliberate neutralisation of the anti‑theft device attached to the goods.
- According to the case‑law of the High Court, such conduct qualifies as theft by disabling an alarm system, which is a form of qualified theft; depending on the circumstances, trespassing into professional premises may also apply.
9.4. Goods stolen from a car that did not lock because of a jammer
The owner parks their car in a supermarket car park and presses the remote to lock it. Unbeknownst to them, a nearby offender uses a jammer that blocks the locking signal. The owner walks away assuming the car is locked. The offender then opens the door and steals a laptop from the back seat.
In light of current case‑law, the jammer may be treated as a fake key. The conduct is therefore likely to be framed as qualified theft by using a fake key, even though the car was apparently “just unlocked” rather than broken into.
10. Frequent myths about qualified theft
“If there was no violence, it cannot be very serious”
This is a misconception. Qualified theft can be extremely serious even without physical violence: think of thefts of cultural artefacts, thefts of telecommunications cables or components of electricity networks, or thefts of oil products from pipelines. The potential social harm and the damage caused may be considerable.
“If I settle with the victim, the case automatically goes away”
This is no longer true for qualified theft. Under the current law, settlement extinguishes liability only for simple theft and certain forms of theft for use. In qualified theft cases, a full settlement may influence the sentence but will not, by itself, terminate the criminal proceedings.
“If everyone was wearing masks because of a health rule, the offender cannot be considered ‘masked’”
Again, the answer is not so simple. Courts look at the concrete effect on identification. If the offender uses the mask together with a cap, hood or glasses so that their face becomes difficult to recognise, the aggravating circumstance of a masked person can still be retained, even if masks were generally mandatory at the time.
11. How to use this guide in practice
Understanding when theft becomes qualified theft is useful for more than just academic interest. It can influence how quickly you react, how you talk to your lawyer and what expectations you have about possible outcomes.
If you are under investigation or charged with theft, this framework can help you:
- Identify which aggravating elements the prosecution relies on.
- Evaluate whether those elements are really present in your concrete situation.
- Discuss with your lawyer realistic scenarios of re‑classification or plea bargaining.
If you are the victim of theft, the same framework can help you:
- Describe the incident more precisely in your criminal complaint.
- Understand why the authorities may treat your case as more serious than a “simple theft”.
- Discuss with a lawyer whether to join the criminal case as a civil party for damages.
12. Important disclaimer
The Criminal Code has been amended several times and case‑law continues to evolve. Moreover, every case has its own particularities – evidence, statements and context can change the legal analysis.
This guide is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. If you are involved in a theft case, whether as a suspect, defendant or victim, you should consult a lawyer as soon as possible for a tailored assessment of your situation.
13. Sources and further reading (Romanian)
Article 229 Criminal Code – qualified theft (updated text) – Lege5.ro.
Chapter on theft (Articles 228–231 Criminal Code) – coduri.juridice.ro.
High Court of Cassation and Justice decisions on qualified theft – legislatie.just.ro search portal (search by decision number and keywords).
Commentaries and academic articles on theft and qualified theft – Universul Juridic and JURIDICE.ro.