Search

This paper aims to provide a detailed analysis of the differences between the offence of embezzlement provided for in Article 295 of the Criminal Code and the offence of abuse of office provided for in Article 297 of the Criminal Code in terms of relevant doctrine and jurisprudence. The frequency of committing misfeasance in office, in particular, the two offences under consideration, gives rise to constant debate on the subject of the article. We have also set out to analyse how the judicial authorities have changed their view in some cases after the Constitutional Court's decision no. 405/2016, which brought some divergences concerning acknowledging the offence of embezzlement instead of the offence of abuse of office. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper aims to provide a detailed analysis of the differences between the offence of embezzlement provided for in Article 295 of the Criminal Code and the offence of abuse of office provided for in Article 297 of the Criminal Code in terms of relevant doctrine and jurisprudence. The frequency of committing misfeasance in office, in particular, the two offences under consideration, gives rise to constant debate on the subject of the article. We have also set out to analyse how the judicial authorities have changed their view in some cases after the Constitutional Court's decision no. 405/2016, which brought some divergences concerning acknowledging the offence of embezzlement instead of the offence of abuse of office. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The entry into force of the new Criminal Code brought back to the attention and discussion of legal practitioners and theoreticians the criteria that distinguish the continued offense from the concurrence of offenses. Although, subsequent to the Romanian Constitutional Court Decision no. 368/2017, it has practically returned to the existing regulation in the matter of the continued offense under the rule of the old Criminal Code, the concrete situations submitted to the attention of the courts continue to provoke theoretical controversies. This article aims to critically analyse the recent case law regarding the criteria considered by the courts when they delimit the existence of a concurrence of offenses or a single offense, in a continuous form. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]