The defendant C.M. from the city of Roman, Neamt county, (also known under the alias C) began recruiting young women as of June 2002, of indigent backgrounds, through deception, (respectively promises of employment overseas) in order to transport and transfer them to Italy. Upon reaching the destination, the young women were informed that they were going to practice prostitution. If any of the women failed to accept the proposal, the defendant threatened physical harm to themselves and, more often, the physical harm of the women’s family in Romania.
In Italy, the women were under the authority of a network of traffickers and their freedom of movement was extremely limited, being effectively isolated. The pandering/procuring was undertaken by the defendant S.S.M (the concubine of the defendant C.M.). It was an established fact of the case that the defendant C.M. was recognised as the leader of the group of felons.
With respect to the defendant M.G.A., the facts summary shows that he recruited young women and procured passports for these women to travel to Italy. M.G.A. also transported, transferred and sold victims to foreign nationals in Italy.
意大利罗马尼亚1st Instance:
Bacau Tribunal
14 November 2007
Decision no. 574/D/2007
The Court sentenced the accused person CM for the offences of human trafficking committed against the victims IC, IE, SA, CV, UAE and IA and for the offences of procuring committed against the victims IP and NM to an imprisonment term of 9 years, the accused person SSM for the offence of procuring to an imprisonment term of 4 years and the accused person MGA for the offence of procuring to an imprisonment term of 4 years.
2nd Instance:
Bacau Court of Appeal
16 September 2008
Decision no. 109
Admitted the appeal of the Public Prosecutor and also sentenced the accused person CM for the offence of human trafficking committed against the victim BL.
The focus of the court centred on the application of the facts to the legal provisions, C.M. was maintained to have used the apartment in Iasi city (Iasi county) to recruit and harbour I.A., D.A. and N.A. (victims), C.M. had also sold victims to Italy and had transported and transferred them.
The court’s primary focus was to apply the facts to the legal provisions. S.S.M., the concubine of the defendant C.M. was established to have acted as panderer for the women that were brought to Italy by C.M. and M.G.A.
The court held that M.G.A. was a repeat offender. The court mandated that M.G.A. pay to the victim B.C. damages amounting to the value of the profit made by M.G.A. through the prostitution of the victim. M.G.A. did not appeal.
Article 12(1) and (2)(a) and article 13(1) of the Law No. 678/2001 to Prevent and combat Trafficking in persons
2nd instance:
The prosecution invoked illegality of the decision of the court of first instance with respect to the failure of such court to pronounce on a legal aspect. Respectively, one of the victims (B.L.) was, at the time of her trafficking, 18 years of age. Consequently, the court of 1st instance was obliged to rule with respect to this fact.
The defendant invoked extenuating circumstances before the court 2nd instance (these aspects are not detailed in the case); C.M.’s claims were rejected by the court.
Through criminal decision No. 109 dated 16 December 2008, issued by the Bacau Court of Appeals, the appeal of the prosecution was admitted and the Court of Appeals ruled with respect to this latter count.
3rd instance:
The High Court of Cassation and Justice rejected the defendant’s appeal through the decision No. 827 dated 10 March 2009.
Article 12(1) of the Law No. 678/2001 to Prevent and combat Trafficking in persons
2nd instance:
The defendant S.S.M. invoked extenuating circumstances before the court 2nd instance (these aspects are not detailed in the case). S.S.M’s claims were rejected by the court.
Through criminal decision No. 109 dated 16 December 2008, issued by the Bacau Court of Appeals, the appeal of the prosecution was admitted and the Court of Appeals ruled with respect to this latter count.
3rd instance:
The defendant S.S.M invoked certain procedural faults of the decision of the Court of Appeals. The recourse (3rd instance) filed by the defendant S.S.M. was rejected by the High Court of Cassation and Justice through decision No. 827 dated 10 March 2009.
Article 12(1) of the Law No. 678/2001 to Prevent and combat Trafficking in persons
High Court of Cassation and Justice
Transnational implications. Italian courts also rendered decisions relevant to the case, respectively the Tribunal of Pescara – criminal decision No. 122/26 January 2006.