During 2003 and 2004 the three defendants recruited E.E. (who was a minor at the time the crime was committed), N.B., U.G., D.S.T., U.M., U.E., U.E., J.N., D.O., and B.S.G. The victims were tricked into going abroad -to Greece- through a sham joboffer to work in agriculture. However, they were taken to a different country from the one they were told they would go to in the first place, and were forced to beg for money intead of working in agriculture (except for victim D.O who knew about going to beg but who was told to expect a 50-50 split of the earnings with defendant D.S. who did not honour the deal).
The defendants would provide the means of transportation with the victim’s promise of repaying all the travel expenses from their future income. The plaintiffs also gave the victims the sum of 500 euros they needed to show to the border authorities during their exit from Romania. Once they arrived at the location where the defendants actually planned to take the victims, they informed them about the real nature of their journey. The defendants used threats and various forms of assault and battery in order to force the claimants to beg for them. In order to accomplish their task the victims were given crutches and instructed on how to twist their limbs in order to look like they were crippled. They were also taught a few phrases in the local language in order to beg, or given notice boards with a similar message.
This way, most of the victims were earning between 60 and 100 euros a day while being carefully supervised by the three defendants who collected their earnings at the end of each day and who used force and aggression when their minimum earning requirements were not met.
The victims managed to escape by hiding money during their period of begging and then using it to go back home while hiding and making sure the defendants would not discover their plan as they were all afraid of the criminal group in which the defendants were involved and through which they conducted their criminal activity.
1st Instance:
The Brașov Tribunal, in its decision no. 41/ S 2009, rendered on the 19th of March 2009, sentenced defendant D.N. for 7 human trafficking counts and for the offences of juvenile trafficking to 7 years of imprisonment.Additionally, the defendant was stripped from the civil right to elect and to be elected for a public authority or public office position, 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 a 4 year period.
The Brașov Tribunal, in the same decision, sentenced defendant D.S. for 3 human trafficking counts and for the offences of juvenile trafficking to 7 years imprisonment. Moreover, the defendant was banned from electing or being elected for a public authority or public office position, from holding a function involving the exercise of state authority and from holding any function or profession similar to the one that the plaintiff used in order to commit the felony.
The same court decision sentenced H.I. for 2 human trafficking felonies and for the offences of juvenile trafficking to 7 years imprisonment. He was also banned from voting, and from being elected fora public authority position or for a public office, from holding any function involving the exercise of state authority or any function or profession similar to the one that the plaintiff used in order to commit the felony.
By the same sentence, the Brașov Tribunal acquitted defendant D.B. of the offences of human and juvenile trafficking.
2nd Instance:
The Prosecution Service affiliated with the Family and Minors Division of the Brașov Tribunal and defendants D.N., D.S., and H.I. each filed appeals on factual and procedural grounds.
The appeal was admitted by the Brașov Court of Appeals by decision 43/A 2009 rendered on the 18th of June 2009. The Court revised the grounds on which the convictions were sentenced for all the plaintiffs and maintained the decision of the inferior court.
The Brașov Court of Appeals only changed the grounds on which proceeds of the crime were confiscated. The same court also ordered that the money earned by three of the plaintiffs be returned to them by felon D.N.
During the trial in the 1st instance, the Family and Minors division of the Brașov Tribunal proceeded to gather the statements from the victims and the witnesses. The focus of the legal reasoning was the application of the facts of the case to the legal provisions (i.e. establishing whether human trafficking crimes had been perpetrated). The Brașov Tribunal sentenced the defendant for human trafficking and for juvenile trafficking.
The Brașov Tribunal acquitted the defendant of all the charges brought against him.
Art. 12 of Law no. 678/2001 on Preventing and Combating Human Trafficking
Art. 13 of Law no. 678/ 2001 on Preventing and Combating Human Trafficking
2nd instance:
Both the Prosecution Service and the defendants appealed the decision of the Brașov Tribunal. The Prosecution Service maintained, chiefly, that the Tribunal had omitted to apply specific provisions of the Criminal Code (application of the most favourable sentence) and that the sentences (as well as the judicial expenses) set for both defendants were very light in view of the social danger posed by the crimes perpetrated and the complexity of the case.
Defendant D.N. appealed the decision of the Brașov Tribunal, requesting, mainly, for the cause to be remanded and for the reversal of the verdict on the grounds that no crime had been perpetrated, the acquittal with respect to the moral damages set, and the retaining of several attenuating circumstances.
The Brașov Court of Appeals only admitted the appeal of the Prosecution Service in part. It rejected the claim regarding the imprisonment conviction given to the defendant but it upheld the claim regarding the damages that had to be paid to the victims deciding that D.N. had to pay an extra 1600 euros to victims U.M., U.E. and D.S.T.
Regarding the defendant’s appeal, it was rejected as the court maintained that the prison sentence given by the Brașov Tribunal was appropriate to the circumstances of the case.
Art. 12 of Law no. 678/2001 on Preventing and Combating Human Trafficking
Art. 13 of Law no. 678/ 2001 on Preventing and Combating Human Trafficking
2nd instance:
Defendant D.S. appealed the decision of the Brașov Tribunal requesting, chiefly, for the cause to be remanded and for the reversal of the verdict on the grounds that no crime had been perpetrated, the acquittal with respect to the moral damages set, and the retaining of several attenuating circumstances.
The Brașov Court of Appeals rejected both the appeals maintaining that the punishment given by the lower court was proportionate to the circumstances of the case and it respected the criteria given by the law in establishing the sentence.
Art. 12 of Law no. 678/2001 on Preventing and Combating Human Trafficking
Art. 13 of Law no. 678/ 2001 on Preventing and Combating Human Trafficking
2nd instance:
Defendant H.I. appealed the decision of the Brașov Tribunal, requesting, mainly, for the cause to be remanded and for the reversal of the verdict on the grounds that no crime had been perpetrated, the acquittal with respect to the moral damages set, and the retaining of several attenuating circumstances.
The Brașov Court of Appeals rejected both of the appeals maintaining that the punishment given by the lower court was proportionate to the circumstances of the case and respected the criteria given by the law in establishing a sentence.
Art. 12 of Law no. 678/2001 on Preventing and Combating Human Trafficking
Art. 13 of Law no. 678/ 2001 on Preventing and Combating Human Trafficking
2nd instance:
The Family and Minors Division of the Brașov Tribunal Prosecution Service appealed the decision on the same grounds on which it demanded harsher imprisonment sentences for defendants D.N., D.S. and H.I. The Brașov Court of Appeals evaluated the evidence and the statements gathered in the case and sustained the decision of the lower court.
Brașov Court of Appeals
In order to gather evidence against the four defendants, besides the statements of the victims, the prosecutors brought a few of their relatives and one of the drivers who transported a number of the claimants to and from the locations where they were abused. In the case of D.B., the prosecutors could not demonstrate his direct involvement in the criminal activities of the group although he was present at some important stages of the events. Moreover, although the Brașov Court of Appeals acknowledged the context of the national authorities fighting against the criminal phenomena of human trafficking, it could not give harsher sentences to the other three convicts without breaking the sentencing criterions imposed by the law.