The court of first instance retained the following facts: the defendant deceived, under the pretext of finding a job for the victim as a dancer in his club Night Club Illusion in Romania and by using the vulnerable position of the victim, with the purposes of commercial sexual exploitation, recruited the victim, helped her to obtain visa. After this, the defendant and the victim met in Chisinau, he intended to transport her abroad and promised her monetary gains in order to convince her to travel with him in Romania to practice prostitution.
1st Instance:
court - Judecatoria Centru, Chisinau; date – 12 August 2008; reasoning – n/a: decision - found guilty of committing a felony under Art. 165(2)(c) of the Penal Code and sentenced to 7 years of imprisonment.
2nd Instance:
court – Curtea de Apel Chisinau; date- 3 November 2008; reasoning – the court of appeal reversed the decision of the court of first instance, quashed the sentence, retried the case, and acquitted the defendant on the ground that his actions did not meet all the elements of the crime.
3rd instance:
Curtea Suprema de Justitie. Upheld Curtea de Apel's decision.
Whether the defendant committed human trafficking;Penal Code, Art. 165 (2)(c); The court of first instance found the defendant guilty. The Appellate Court reversed. The Supreme Court upheld the decision of the court of appeal.
Moldovan Penal Code, Art. 165 (2)(c)
2nd instance:
Curtea de Apel Chisinau – appellate court (reviews the facts and merits of the case), the defendant appealed the decisions of the first instance stating that the decision is illegal and is based exclusively on the statement made by the victim. The court of appeal found the defendant not guilty on the ground that his actions did not meet all the elements of the crime.
3rd instance:
Curtea Suprema de Justitie – court of last resort (examines procedural and legal errors), the prosecution filed an appeal on the ground that the court of appeal did not take into account the evidence presented before the court which prove that the defendant committed human trafficking. The Supreme Court stated that the decision of the appeal court is legal and motivated and the appeal is ungrounded.
Supreme Court of Justice
The Supreme Court stated that the appeal filed by the prosecution was not grounded because none of the provisions of Art. 427(1)(6) of the Criminal Procedure Code apply from the point of view of the invoked legal error. The Supreme Court also pointed out that the court of appeal reasoned its decision, providing answers to all the grounds invoked by the defendant.