Document-related accusations often start as “just paperwork” and escalate fast: a contested signature, a supplier invoice that does not match reality, a contract allegedly altered after signing, or statements and accounting records questioned in a tax inspection. In practice, the case turns on evidence and timing: what exists in the original file, how the documents were created and transmitted, who had access, and what the surrounding chronology shows.
This service is for entrepreneurs, directors, managers and companies who already have a criminal file or a realistic risk: a complaint from a counterparty, a dispute after termination of a contract, a tax inspection that raised suspicions, or investigative steps (summons, document seizures, searches, or asset freezing). The next step is practical: we collect the relevant documents, build a verifiable timeline, identify what must be proven (authenticity, authorship, use, intent, damage), and decide how to approach hearings, evidence requests and expert examinations.
This page provides general information and does not replace legal advice. Facts, documents and timelines matter.
When you may need this
- You are accused of using forged documents (contracts, invoices, statements, certificates) in a commercial relationship or a tax context.
- A counterparty claims the contract was altered after signature or that annexes were swapped or replaced.
- There is a signature dispute and you expect a handwriting/signature expert examination.
- Invoices, delivery notes, acceptance reports, or accounting records are challenged as fictitious or inconsistent with reality.
- During a tax inspection, documents were requested and the discussion shifted to “suspected fraud” or “false documents”.
- You received a summons, a request for documents, or a report of seizure for accounting records, correspondence, or devices.
- There are allegations of false statements or false declarations made to an authority or a business counterparty.
- Emails, scans, PDF versions, or “final” documents conflict, and you need to clarify authenticity and version history.
- Asset freezing or seizure is discussed or already imposed, based on an alleged prejudice tied to documents.
What we do, concretely
- Clarify your procedural status (witness/suspect/defendant) and what the authorities are actually investigating, based on the documents in the file.
- Collect and structure the document set: originals where possible, certified copies, emails, annexes, versions, metadata, and proof of transmission.
- Build a timeline: when the documents were created, signed, amended, sent, used, and what business events explain each step.
- Map the core issues: authenticity (is it forged), authorship (who created it), use (how it was used), intent, damage and causation.
- Evidence strategy: identify what must be secured early (server logs, email headers, accounting exports, device backups, platform records).
- Expert strategy: assess if and when a handwriting, document, or digital forensic examination is useful, and what questions should be put to the expert.
- Procedural steps: requests and objections, access to the file, preparation for hearings, targeted submissions and challenges where the law allows.
- Risk management in parallel: coordinate the criminal file with tax exposure and civil/commercial disputes, without creating contradictions.
- Plan the next stages: pre-trial chamber (legality), trial strategy (evidence, experts, witnesses) and available remedies, without promising outcomes.
Documents and information useful for the first assessment
| Document | Why it matters | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| Case documents (summons, ordinances, minutes, seizure reports, requests) | Shows the stage, the scope of accusations and what evidence the authorities already rely on | Include communication dates and any annexes listing requested items |
| Contested document(s) and all versions (original, scan, PDF, drafts, annexes) | Central to authenticity, version history and authorship | Keep file names, timestamps, and the source of each version |
| Proof of transmission (emails, courier, platforms, registers, WhatsApp chats) | Helps establish who sent what, when, and with what context | Prefer exports that preserve headers and attachments |
| Commercial file (contract set, orders, delivery notes, acceptance reports) | Shows business reality behind documents and whether performance matches paperwork | Link each document to the underlying event and counterparty |
| Accounting and tax file (journals, ledgers, VAT records, inventory, statements) | Relevant when alleged false documents impact tax declarations or financial statements | Extracts should be consistent and traceable to source systems |
| Bank records (statements, payment orders, reconciliations) | Supports or contradicts the alleged transaction reality and the claimed prejudice | Correlate each payment with invoice, delivery and approval |
| Internal approvals and governance (board/GA resolutions, mandates, signatures) | Clarifies authority to sign and who controlled document flows | Useful for delimiting responsibility and actual control |
| Technical context (device lists, email domains, cloud accounts, access logs) | Important in digital evidence disputes and forensic examinations | Secure access data early to avoid loss or overwriting |
Common risks and mistakes
- Explaining the case “from memory” in the first hearing, without a document-based timeline, leading to contradictions.
- Mixing versions of the same document (draft vs final vs scan) and losing the chain of custody.
- Failing to preserve digital evidence early (emails, logs, cloud records), allowing metadata and access trails to disappear.
- Assuming the dispute is “only civil” while criminal exposure is already forming, especially when invoices and tax records are involved.
- Sharing partial documents or informal statements to authorities without a clear strategy on what they prove and what they omit.
- Ignoring the impact of seizure/asset freezing and missing deadlines to challenge or clarify proportionality.
- Letting parallel civil, commercial and tax narratives drift apart, creating inconsistencies that damage credibility.
FAQ
Does a signature dispute automatically mean a criminal offence?
No. A signature dispute can be purely civil or commercial, but it can also trigger criminal allegations depending on how the document was created and used. The first step is to secure all versions and transmission evidence and to build a timeline on documents.
What is usually decisive in forgery and false-document cases?
Authenticity and use are assessed through concrete traces: originals vs copies, version history, access and transmission evidence, consistency with business reality, and expert examinations where relevant. A coherent chronology supported by documents matters more than general explanations.
Should I agree to provide documents immediately when requested?
Often you must comply with lawful requests, but the way you comply matters: completeness, accuracy, and preservation of context (versions, attachments, headers) can change the evidentiary picture. It is prudent to structure the submission and keep a clear record of what was provided.
Can digital forensics help (emails, PDFs, devices)?
Yes, in many cases. Digital evidence can clarify creation and transmission paths, file metadata, access and modifications, but only if data is preserved in time. Early steps to secure logs, exports and backups are often critical.
How do forgery allegations intersect with tax exposure?
When invoices or accounting records are questioned, the case can evolve into parallel tracks: criminal allegations and tax assessments/controls. A consistent document-based narrative is essential to avoid contradictions between statements, accounting records and procedural positions.
What if the document is real, but authorities claim it was used for a false purpose?
Cases can turn on “use” and context: what the document was meant to prove, how it was presented, and whether it matches the underlying transaction. That is why the broader commercial file (orders, deliveries, payments, approvals) is usually as important as the document itself.
Contact
If you send a short timeline (key dates, counterparties, what documents are disputed) and the documents you already have (including all versions), I can indicate what steps make sense in your case and what is urgent.
Relevant internal links
Sources
- Law no. 286/2009 – Criminal Code (Portal Legislativ)
- Law no. 135/2010 – Criminal Procedure Code (Portal Legislativ)
- Law no. 207/2015 – Tax Procedure Code (Portal Legislativ)
- Law no. 241/2005 – Preventing and combating tax evasion (Portal Legislativ)
- Law no. 82/1991 – Accounting Law (Portal Legislativ)
- Directive (EU) 2017/1371 (PIF Directive) (EUR-Lex)
- Regulation (EU) 2018/1805 on freezing and confiscation orders (EUR-Lex)