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]