He facilitated transfers from the Russian Federation to influence the vote in favor of a political party.

From August 2024 to February 2025, the accused, acting in concert with other individuals, collected the personal data of a voter and installed the PSB Bank application on the mobile phone, facilitating financial transfers (including from the Russian Federation) and subsequently extracting and transmitting the amount of 10,000 lei as a reward for electoral support.

The actions were carried out with the aim of persuading the voter to vote in favor of a political party and against the constitutional referendum on October 20, 2024.

Other property measures: Recovery of court costs in the amount of 7,240 lei (not 3,640 lei – adjustment according to the court's decision)

First instance: Conviction
Appeal: The prosecutor's appeal was granted on other grounds with the collection from the accused of the monetary means intended for the commission of the crime in the amount of 10,000MDL

The analyzed decision concerns an accusation of electoral corruption under Article 181¹ of the Penal Code, consisting of offering and giving money through indirect mechanisms (bank transfers and financial applications) for the purpose of influencing voters' voting choices.

The case reveals an evolved form of electoral corruption, characterized by the use of external financial infrastructures (PSB Bank) and digital technologies (application installation, personal data collection), which complicates the traceability of financial flows. The evidence is reinforced by witness statements, banking data, video footage from ATMs, and digital expertise.

The Court found direct intent and assessed that the mere offering of material benefits, regardless of the actual outcome of the vote, is sufficient for the commission of the offense. Similarly, the Court opted for a lesser sanction than that requested by the prosecution (750 u.c. vs. 1000 u.c.), reflecting the application of criteria for individualizing the punishment (lack of prior convictions, positive character reference).

Additionally, the solution highlights the practice of courts not to order confiscation in such cases, even in the presence of relevant financial flows, opting instead for monetary sanctions and measures on the objects of the offense (destruction/restoration of the previous situation).
The appellate court overturned the decision of the first instance court regarding confiscation and ordered the special confiscation of the amount of 10,000MDL from the defendant. However, the appellate court established the lack of evidence justifying the application of the extended confiscation requested by the state prosecutor.