Forgery and Use of Forged Documents – Criminal Code in Romania
Forgery offenses are regulated under Title VI of the Special Part of the Romanian Criminal Code, under the same name. Therefore, we can deduce that the legally protected value is precisely the public’s trust in documents, currency, and other payment instruments. The purpose of regulating these offenses is to prevent the alteration or counterfeiting of certain objects in a way that affects general perception regarding their authenticity.
Depending on the object being forged, forgery offenses are distinctly regulated through Articles 310-328 of the Criminal Code. Thus, forgery can be committed concerning currency, credit securities, payment instruments, stamps, or postal effects, official instruments, and documents. In certain cases, in addition to penalizing the act of alteration or counterfeiting, the legislator has also chosen to criminally sanction the circulation of such objects. Additionally, for some offenses, typicality is determined by the act of putting such goods into circulation or handing them over for use with that purpose.
The most common legal situations in criminal cases before the courts involve the falsification of authentic documents or those under private signature. In these offenses, the method of operation may vary depending on the actions taken by the perpetrator concerning the document. Thus, forgery can be material or intellectual.
Regarding material forgery, this refers to the falsification of writing or signatures, or the counterfeiting of an official document that produces legal effects. Intellectual forgery, unlike material forgery, requires that the perpetrator be a public official and that they be performing their duties when attesting to facts or circumstances that are not true, or knowingly omitting to insert them.
Regarding this special status, the Romanian Criminal Code expressly defines the term “public official” in Article 175 and grants this status to individuals who hold public office or exercise functions concerning the exercise of state power. Furthermore, the Criminal Code also refers to individuals who are assimilated to public officials. These are individuals who perform a public service in which they have been vested by public authorities or who are subject to the control or supervision of such authorities in fulfilling that public service (e.g., public notaries, public hospitals, etc.).
Therefore, the special status of a public official or an assimilated individual is relevant for determining typicality only in the case of intellectual forgery. However, the special status of the active subject is also found in Article 320, paragraph (2) of the Criminal Code concerning material forgery in official documents, where this status acts as an aggravating factor, leading to a more severe penalty for material forgery in official documents if committed by a public official.
Furthermore, the subject of the forgery is not limited to official documents, as the legislator pays special attention to forgery regarding documents under private signature, which also produce legal effects. This time, Article 322 of the Criminal Code directly refers to both intellectual and material forgery. This reference suggests that forgery in documents under private signature can be committed by altering the writing or the signature or by counterfeiting them. Additionally, if a public official, in the exercise of their function, falsely reports facts in a document under private signature or knowingly omits to insert them, the offense will fall under Article 320 of the Criminal Code.
Specifically, Article 323 of the Criminal Code separately regulates the offense of using a forged document, thus reproaching the perpetrator for knowingly and intentionally using such a legal document. Of course, if the person using such a document is unaware that the private or authentic document is forged, their act will not be considered an offense due to the lack of intent, as the offense can only be committed intentionally.
If the perpetrator of forgery in a document under private signature, after forging the document, uses it or entrusts it to another person for use, they will not be held liable for a concurrence of offenses between forging a document under private signature and the offense of using a forged document. Such a legal classification is explained by the fact that forgery of a document under private signature already implies the use of the forged document, making it excessive and illegal to penalize the perpetrator twice for the same act under different offenses.
Regarding the material object, Title VI of the Criminal Code also includes the offense of forgery concerning technical recordings and computer forgery. Regarding these offenses, the code reflects the reality of technological evolution by regulating the alteration, counterfeiting, or inducement of recording false data or circumstances. In the case of computer forgery, the legislator also extends the methods of commission to situations where data is introduced or modified without authorization or where access to a computer system is restricted. However, to establish the liability of an individual for these offenses, legal consequences must result, or the act must be committed with the purpose of producing such consequences.
Moreover, the Criminal Code does not overlook the offense of identity forgery, in which the focus is on fraudulently assuming another person’s identity using an identification, authentication, or civil status document. This abuse must, however, target a public official to meet the typicality requirement and must have the potential to produce legal consequences or be committed with the purpose of producing such consequences.
Additionally, if the perpetrator assumes the real identity of an existing person, the offense will no longer be classified in its basic form but in its aggravated form. The offense applies similarly when committed concerning a foreign state. Thus, if the false declaration is made before a foreign public authority or if the documents used are issued by such a foreign authority.
Forgery and Use of Forged Documents – Statute of Limitations in Romania
The statute of limitations on criminal liability is a substantive criminal law institution that influences the ability to prosecute offenders. It serves to penalize state authorities for their inaction.
Depending on the specific legal provisions, criminal liability will expire under Article 154 (1) of the Criminal Code, which provides the following time limits:
- 15 years when the law prescribes life imprisonment or a prison sentence exceeding 20 years;
- 10 years when the law prescribes a prison sentence of more than 10 years but not exceeding 20 years;
- 8 years when the law prescribes a prison sentence of more than 5 years but not exceeding 10 years;
- 5 years when the law prescribes a prison sentence of more than one year but not exceeding 5 years;
- 3 years when the law prescribes a prison sentence not exceeding one year or a fine;
For example, in the case of intellectual forgery, the statute of limitations is determined based on the penalty prescribed by law. Article 325, paragraph (1) sanctions the offense with imprisonment of one to five years, and from Article 154, paragraph (1), letter d), we deduce that the statute of limitations for criminal liability will be five years.
Forgery and Use of Forged Documents – Penalty in Romania
The Criminal Code penalizes forgery offenses with imprisonment, which, in some cases, is alternated with fines depending on the severity of the acts and their potential consequences.
For intellectual forgery, the penalty prescribed by law is between one and five years of imprisonment, while for material forgery in its basic form, the penalty ranges between six months and three years. If the active subject has special status, an aggravating factor applies, increasing the penalty to between one and five years of imprisonment. In the case of counterfeiting currency, the maximum penalty is ten years in prison due to the difficulty of controlling the spread of forged currency.
Regarding documents under private signature, the penalty is six months to two years or a fine, and for the use of forged documents, the penalty is between three months and two years or a fine.
