During 2006-2007 the defendants abducted and exploited victims D.M., E.B.N., G.J.D., J., E.H.M. and D.S. The minors were in a vulnerable position, many of them being homeless or coming from other challenging backgrounds.
Defendants P.T. and O.D. were the ones who harboured the victims and gathered all the money the minors were making either from begging or selling magazines and newspapers on the street (approximately RON 300 per child per day). The defendants T.O.E., E.J.B., E.O., D.B.O. and N.N. were in charge of transporting and supervising the minors during their exploitation. They used various forms of assault and battery in order to coerce the minors into working for them and also recaptured those who tried to escape.
1st Instance:
The Family and Minors Division of the Brașov Tribunal, in its decision no. 84/S/2008 rendered on the 4th of July 2008, sentenced defendant O.D. for several counts of juvenile trafficking, committed against victims D.M., E.B.N., G.J.D., J., E.H.M. and D.S. to 13 years imprisonment. Additionally, she was stripped from the civil right to elect and to be elected for a public authority position or for public office, the right to hold a function involving the exercise of state authority and the right to hold any function or profession similar to the one that the plaintiff used in order to commit the felony for 5 years.
The Brașov Tribunal, in the same decision sentenced defendants T.O.E. and E.J.B. for juvenile trafficking, committed against victims D.M., E.B.N., G.J.D., J., E.H.M., D.N. and D.S., to 11 years ofimprisonment. Additionally, they were also stripped from the civil right to elect and to be elected for a public authority position or for public office, the right to hold a function involving the exercise of state authority and the right to hold any function or profession similar to the one that the plaintiffs used in order to commit the felony, for 4 years.
The Brașov Tribunal also sentenced defendants P.T. and D.B.O. for the offences of juvenile trafficking committed against victims D.M., E.B.N, D.E., E.H.M. and D.N. to 7 years of imprisonment. They were also stripped from the civil right to elect and to be elected within public authorities or public offices, the right to hold a function involving the exercise of state authority and the right to hold any function or profession similar to the one that the plaintiffs used in order to commit the felony for 2 years.
The Brașov Tribunal also sentenced defendants N.N. and E.O. for the offences of juvenile trafficking committed against victims D.M., E.B.N., E.H.M. and D.E. to 3 years and 6 months of imprisonment. The Court ordered for the both of them to serve the sentence under a parole term of 5 years which included the prohibition of contacting all the other felons convicted in the trial.
2nd Instance:
Defendants O.D., T.O.E., E.J.B., P.T., D.B.O. and N.N. filed appeals against the decision.
Defendant O.D. requested the admission of her appeal and the overruling or the reduction of the sentence given by the Tribunal. The main grounds on which her appeal was based were invoking the lack of mens rea in her actions as she committed the crime in order to provide the basic needs for herself and her child. In her appeal she also argued that the punishment was not proportionate to the gravity of the crime and that her personal circumstances would not allow her to serve such a long term of imprisonment as she was a single parent to a minor child.
Defendant T.E.O. requested the admission of his appeal and to be acquitted as, according to his defense, there was no connection between the evidence and the statements that led to his conviction in court. In his appeal it was argued that the incriminating statements made by defendant O.D. against him were not true, especially since the families of the two defendants were in conflict with each other.
Defendant E.B. requested the admission of his appeal and to be acquitted as his crime also lacked the mens rea element. His appeal argued that he was not involved in supervising or coercing the minors forced to beg and that he had a lawful job and a good behaviour in the community.
Defendants P.T., D.B.O. and N.N requested the admission of their appeal and their acquittal as there was no evidence of them coercing or exploiting the victims in any way. It was argued that they only offered their help to the minors and that defendant O.D. was the one who exploited the victims.
The appellants also argued against the individualisations of their convictions as they did not have any prior criminal record and some of them had other special personal circumstances like parenting.
After evaluating the proceedings of the Tribunal, the Brașov Court of appeals rejected the appeals filed by the defendants and upheld all the provisions made by the 1st instance Court.
During the first instance trial, the Brașov Tribunal proceeded to gather the statements from the victims and the witnesses. The focus of the legal reasoning was the analysis of the facts of the case (respectively the deeds of each of the defendants) and their clasification attending to the legal provisions.
Art. 13, par. 1, 2, 3, Law. No 678/2001
Confiscation of the proceeds of the crime
2nd instance:
The defendant appealed the decision of the Brașov Tribunal, requesting, primarily, for the reversal of the verdict on the grounds that there was no bad intent behind her acts as she only did her best to provide for herself and her children. The defendant also invoked her personal circumstances in order to contest the length of the term of imprisonment she was sentenced to.
The Brașov Court of Appeals evaluated the proceedings of the 1st instance Court and upheld the decision, as all the witness and victim statements gathered corroboratedthe material evidence brought by the prosecutors, and clearly demonstrated the mens rea and the actus reus of the defendant. The court also upheld the conviction to 13 years of imprisonment as it considered the serious social danger represented by the actions of the defendant.
Art. 13, par. 1, 2, 3, Law. No 678/2001
Judicial expenses
2nd instance:
The defendant appealed the decision of the Brașov Tribunal, requesting the reversal of the verdict on the grounds that there was no connection between the the statements made by defendant D.O. and the material evidence brought in front of the court. The defendant also invoked the state of conflict in which his family and that of the first defendant were involved in.
The Brașov Court of Appeals evaluated the proceedings of the 1st instance court and upheld the decision as all the statements given by witnesses and victims corroborated the material evidence brought by the prosecutors, and clearly demonstrated the mens rea and the actus reus of the defendant. The Court also upheld the conviction to 11 years of imprisonment, as it considered the serious social danger represented by the actions of the defendant.
Art 13, par. 1, 2, 3, Law. No 678/2001
Judicial expenses
2nd instance:
The defendant appealed the decision of the Brașov Tribunal, requesting the reversal of the verdict on the grounds that there was no mens rea for his actions as he had no involvement in the case, and had a lawful job and was well integrated in his community.
The Brașov Court of Appeals evaluated the proceedings of the 1st instance Court and upheld the decision as all the witness’ and victims’ statements corroboratedthe material evidence brought by the prosecutors, and clearly demonstrated the mens rea and the actus reus of the defendant. The court also upheld the conviction to 11 years of imprisonment as it considered the serious social danger represented by the actions of the defendant. The court also noted that the defendant was currently serving an imprisonment sentence for a previous conviction.
Art 13, par. 1, 2, 3, Law. No 678/2001
Human Trafficking of Minors
2nd instance:
The defendant appealed the decision of the Brașov Tribunal, requesting the reversal of the verdict on the grounds that there was no mens rea for her actions. The defendant maintained that all she did was help the victims at their request and that the only person responsible for the exploitation of the victims was defendant O.D.
The Brașov Court of Appeals evaluated the proceedings of the 1st instance Court and upheld the decision as all the statements given by the witnesses and victims in the case corroborated the material evidence brought by the prosecutors and clearly demonstrated the mens rea and the actus reus of the defendant. The court also upheld the conviction to 7 years of imprisonment as it considered the social danger represented by the actions of the defendant.
Art 13, par. 1, 2, 3, Law. No 678/2001
Judicial expenses
2nd instance:
The defendant appealed the decision of the Brașov Tribunal, requesting the reversal of the verdict on the grounds that there was no mens rea for his actions. The defendant maintained that all he did was help the victims at their request and that the only person responsible for the exploitation of the claimants was defendant O.D.
The Brașov Court of Appeals evaluated the proceedings of the 1st instance Court and upheld the decision as all the statements given by the witnesses and victims in the casecorroborated the material evidence brought by the prosecutors, and clearly demonstrated the mens rea and the actus reus of the defendant. The Court also upheld the conviction to 7 years of imprisonment as it considered the social danger represented by the actions of the defendant and his lack of a criminal record.
Art 13, par. 1, 2, 3, Law. No 678/2001
Judicial expenses
2nd instance:
The defendant appealed the decision of the Brașov Tribunal, and requested the reversal of the verdict on the grounds that there was no mens rea for his actions. The defendant maintained that all he did was help the victims at their request and that the only person responsible for the exploitation of the claimants was defendant O.D.
The Brașov Court of Appeals evaluated the proceedings of the 1st instance Court and upheld the decision as all the witness’ and victims’ statements were consistent with the material evidence brought by the prosecutors, and clearly demonstrated the mens rea and the actus reus of the defendant. The court also upheld the conviction to 3 years and 6 months of imprisonment served as a 5 year parole as it considered the social danger represented by the actions of the defendant, his age and lack of a criminal record.
Art 13, par. 1, 2, 3, Law. No 678/2001
5 years of parole
Brașov Court of Appeals
The Brașov Court of Appeals dismissed all the appeals made by the defendants as all the physical evidence and the statements brought before the Tribunal clearly indicated they were guilty of the crime. Moreover the Court did not change the sentences according to the criminal records or personal situations brought up by the defendants as it considered the serious danger their crimes represent to society.