Radu Nicolae

Cyberattacks originating from Romania have grabbed media headlines. At the same time, Romania still lacks independent criminological research on cybercrime. While criminal justice system in Romania pursues more and more cases of cybercrimes, new criminal activities such as ransomware, for instance, are a reality that is acknowledged but not combated with commensurate means. This is not only the case in Romania as cybercriminals enjoy structural advantages against law enforcement: many incidents are not reported, criminals have access to knowledge and expertise of a wider community on the Internet, criminals are specialized in using specific tools while law enforcement lacks the experience or knowledge for all specific types of attacks, criminals act across borders while law enforcement have limited jurisdiction, cybercrimes are regarded by the justice system more as white-collar crimes and receive lenient sentences . Also, complaints about insufficient law enforcement resources are heard in most countries . Given the wide diversity of types of cybercrime (or cyber related crime)  , the imprecise delineation of its meaning and the emergence of new technologies it is not easy to decide how much to invest and in what type of law enforcement capacities to invest in.

Radu Nicolae recounts the story of corruption in the medical sector of Romania. It reads like a narrative of a house of mirrors, in which nothing is what it pretends to be. Naturally one thinks of the ubiquitous tradition of informal payments of patients to the general physician. But this is only the baseline of corruption involving mainly poor patients and low paid doctors and it is certainly not specific of Romania. Above this baseline the author elaborates a labyrinth of opportunities for corruption and fraud. This ranges from the doctor who conspires with the pharmacist next-door to make phony prescriptions, to “big pharma” to get its ineffective brand on the most advantageous compensation list. The experience with corruption starts with medical students who get their diplomas by bribing the professor after which they slide into a system where they are under a corruption pressure to hustle patients
(some real, others on paper from a bought name list, some dead), medicines, and his own career towards an equally corrupt top. Actually, this is a technical enumeration of deceit and abuse and is not the real social and psychological – human – narrative. That is the broadly shared complicity through the whole social system of patronage and clientelism, from the successive Ministers of Health downwards.

Corupția este, în esență, o infracţiune motivată de dorinţa de îmbogăţire, de aceea recuperarea prejudiciilor şi veniturilor dobândite prin săvârşirea de infracţiuni de corupție este esențială în reducerea fenomenului. Pedepsele de condamnarea la închisoare pentru corupţie sunt ineficace dacă persoanele corupte sunt lăsate să îşi pună la adăpost profiturile dobândite prin corupție . Aşadar, instituirea sechestrului asigurator asupra activelor persoanelor cercetate reprezintă o prioritatea pentru un procuror care anchetează o afacere de corupție. Astfel, odată emisă hotărârea judecătorească definitivă de confiscare specială/extinsă sau de acordare a despăgubirilor civile, aceasta va putea fi pusă rapid în executare. Un alt motiv pentru a sechestra activele presupus a fi obţinute prin corupţie este de a împiedica inculpaţii să mituiască, ameninţe sau să santajeze magistraţii şi martorii, sau să realizeze alte activităţi infracţionale. Odată ce produsele infracţionale sunt confiscate iar prejudiciile sunt recuperate de la infractori, un alt aspect important este valorificarea acestora, astfel încât infractorii să fie împiedicaţi să le cumpere înapoi, iar procedura de valorificare a activelor confiscate să nu dea naștere în sine unei noi pieţe a corupţiei.
Recuperarea prejudiciilor şi produselor infracţiunilor este un proces îndelungat, care implică mai multe agenții naționale și internaționale. În acest articol, oferim o prezentare generală a procesului de recuperare a prejudiciilor şi a produselor infracţiunilor în România și analizăm o serie de hotărâri judecătorești definitive din România, prin care au fost acordate despăgubiri victimelor infracţiunilor de corupției, în special instituţii şi autorităţi publice. Dezbaterea temei recuperării prejudiciilor şi produselor infracţiunilor de corupţie se loveşte de lipsa de date oficiale coerente şi complete.

During the last 10 years, the Romanian justice system (prosecution and courts) has
seriously been engaged in fighting high-level corruption. High-level officials have
been prosecuted and convicted for corruption, including a prime-minster2, ministers3,
members of Parliament, magistrates and mayors of major cities. Nevertheless, the
perception of corruption has not significantly diminished. The fight against
corruption is concentrated at high levels of power, with significant impact on the
political game but without visible impact on administrative/organisational behaviour
or capacity, in terms of quality of service.

In this work we will try to prove that, after the first round of the general elections in Romania, which took place on 26th of November 2000, the strong reaction of the civil society against the second candidate remained in the race for the Presidency of Romania, Corneliu Vadim Tudor, block the rise of his popularity and, consequently, to lowed his chances to become the President of Romania. We will assume that this reaction was effective. In addition, we will analyze the genesis and the ethical and political implications of this reaction.

In this work we will try to prove that, after the first round of the general elections in Romania, which took place on 26th of November 2000, the strong reaction of the civil society against the second candidate remained in the race for the Presidency of Romania, Corneliu Vadim Tudor, block the rise of his popularity and, consequently, to lowed his chances to become the President of Romania. We will assume that this reaction was effective. In addition, we will analyze the genesis and the ethical and political implications of this reaction.

Romania seizes annually below 5% of the illicit cigarettes available on the market. Assessment report.  In 2013-2017 period, all four public authorities in Romania with mandate to counter illicit trade in cigarettes, namely General Inspectorate of Border Police (IGPF), General Customs Directorate (DGV), General Inspectorate of Romanian Police (IGPR) and Romanian Gendarmerie, seized between 2% and 5% of the illicit cigarettes available on the market. In 2013-2017 period, consumption patterns reveal Botoșani as the county with a constantly high illicit consumption. Next in line are Suceava, Satu-Mare and Dolj.

România confiscă anual sub 5% din țigările care se vând ilegal pe teritoriul său. Raport de analiză. În perioada 2013-2017, cele patru autorități publice din România ce combat comerțul ilicit cu țigarete, și anume Inspectoratul General al Poliției de Frontieră (IGPF), Direcția Generală a Vămilor (DGV), Inspectoratul General al Poliției Române (IGPR) și Jandarmeria Română, au ridicat/indisponibilizat în vederea confiscării între 2% și 5% din cantitatea de țigarete ilicite existentă pe piață. În perioada 2013-2017, analiza tiparelor de consum de țigarete ilicite arată că județul Botoșani înregistrează constant un consum ilicit foarte mare. Pe următoarele locuri se clasează județele Suceava, Satu-Mare și Dolj.