Critical reflections on special seizure in matter of corruption offences

• Author: Monica Pocora - Mihail-Silviu Pocora
• Position: PhD, Assistant Professor'Danubius' University, Galati - Candidate to PhD,'Al. I. Cuza' Police Academy
• Pages: 281-283

CRITICAL REFLECTIONS ON SPECIAL SEIZURE IN MATTER OF

CORRUPTION OFFENCES

Monica Pocora

∗

∗∗

∗

Mihail-Silviu Pocora

∗

∗∗

∗∗

∗∗

∗

Abstract

Corruption offences evoke through themselves a variety of controversy, but judicial

practice has proven these may appear due to corruption subjects. This paper explores some

controversy and offers some suggestions regarding the applicability of the security measure

of special confiscation as regards corruption offenses generally, and different regime of

criminal liability of some civil servants, in particular.

Key words: Special confiscation, corruption, officers, controversy

Introduction

Special seizure is regulated as a safety measure both in by Penal Code and special

criminal disposals, but the legal practice continues to render different decisions based both

on general or special provisions, which determine criticism regarding on applicability of this

measure only for certain categories of people.

In the course of trial, often occurs the situation of seizure certain assets, listed in Art.

118 Criminal Code, categories of goods that can be reported in conjunction with other

general or special criminal provisions, as follows:

•

According to art. 118 letter d and e Criminal Code, are subject to special seizure,

goods that were given to determine the commission of an act or to reward the doer, as

well as those acquired by committing the crime provided by the criminal law, if are

not returned to the person injured and to the extent that it does not serve to

compensate.

•

According to art. 254 paragraph 3, art. 256 paragraph 2, art.257 paragraph 2 Criminal

Code, money, values or any other property shall be confiscated and if they are not

found, the convict is obliged to pay their equivalent in money.

•

According to art. 255 paragraph 5 Criminal Code, money, values or any other

property shall be returned to the person who gave, if briber denounce to authority the

act before the prosecuting authority has been notified, or if there was constrainedly

through any ways by who took the bribes.

•

According to art. 6

1

paragraph 2 and 4, in conjunction with art.1 and 8

1

by Law

78/2000 on the prevention, detection and punishment of acts of corruption, the

perpetrator is not punishable if denounces to authority the act before the prosecuting

authority have been notified, and money, values or any other goods are returned to

the person who gave them, and are applied to officials with leading or management

functions in state institutions, persons with leadership positions in political national

∗

PhD, Assistant Professor”Danubius” University, Galati, monicapo cora@univ-danubius.ro

∗∗

Candidate to PhD,”Al. I. Cuza” Police Academy, silviupocor a@yahoo.com