Part II
Andra-Roxana ILIE, Commentary of the Decision no. 2550 of August 13, 2012 issued by the High Court of Cassation and Justice, Criminal Chamber
As there is no legal provision in this respect, the case law established that the criminal liability of a legal person can be engaged by the acts perpetrated by its organs, representatives, but also by its attorneys and persons who don’t work officially for the said entity, but who act under its authority. The decision is important because it is the first time when the Supreme Court states that the criminal liability of a legal person has a personal character regarding both the legal person as the natural person.
With respect to the precautionary measures, according to the Criminal Procedure Code, the judge can take such measures against the legal person if two conditions are fulfilled: the existence of serious grounds which justify the reasonable assumption that the legal person committed an act provided by the criminal law and the necessity of the precautionary measure for the criminal trial.
The existence of serious grounds which justify the reasonable assumption that the legal person committed an act provided by the criminal law must be seen in connection with the fact for which the entity is charged as well as with the conditions provided in art. 191par. 1 of the Criminal Code. Consequently, the precautionary measures cannot be taken against the legal person if, when the Prosecutor’s proposal regarding the precautionary measures is analyzed, it results that the conditions for the engagement of criminal liability of the legal entity are not fulfilled, meaning the perpetration of the crime when performing the social object, in the legal person’s interest or on its behalf. Such interpretation is however criticizable, taking into account that the court actually analyzes the conditions of the criminal liability themselves and not only the precautionary measures.
Key-words: criminal liability of legal person, money laundering, bail, interim measures
« back