- ROU053Case No. 33622/110/2006
- RomaniaVerdict Date: 2009-03-10Sentence Date : 2007-11-14
Defendant C.M. (also known under the alias “C.”) began recruiting young women in June 2002. C.M. recruited women of indigent backgrounds through deception, (false 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 the women with physical harm to themselves and, more often, physical harm to the women’s families in Romania.
In Italy, the women were subjected to the authority of a network of traffickers and their freedom of movement was extremely limited, which rendered the victims effectively isolated. The pandering/procuring was undertaken by defendant S.S.M (the concubine of the defendant C.M.). It was an established fact of the case that defendant C.M. was recognised as the leader of the criminal group.
With respect to defendant M.G.A., 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.Show more
- ROU052Decision 7/A/MF/2008
- RomaniaVerdict Date: 2008-01-29Sentence Date : 2008-01-29
The defendant, E.J.D. recruited and transported the minor victim E.H. in Sweden. In December 2004, the respondent forced the victim to beg through the use of deception, and with the purpose of economically exploiting the victim’s begging activities.
The defendant also received another minor victim –J.P.D.- and the adult victim J.F. for the purpose of exploitation.
Finally, E.J.D. also recruited two victims –E.H. and E.N.- and transportated them to Denmark. He forced the two victims to practice prostitution in order to obtain illicit material benefits.
The respondent was arrested on 29 July 2006. The respondent did not have any prior criminal records.Show more
- ROU035Case CA Brasov 43-Ap-2009
- RomaniaVerdict Date: 2009-06-18Sentence Date : 2009-06-18
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.Show more
- ROU036Case CA Brasov 39-Ap-2008
- RomaniaVerdict Date: 2008-04-30Sentence Date : 2008-05-26
At the end of 2002, due to her financial struggles, the claimant, E.H., lived at the premises belonging to the defendants. The two defendants took advantage of the fact that she was an alcoholic and made her beg for them abroad. Between March 2003 and September 2004 she was taken to Poland (March 2003-June 2003) and to Germany (July 2003-September 2003, August 2004-September 2004). During their time abroad the defendants retained her passport and showed her how to beg, giving her crutches and teaching her a few words in German and Polish. They also collected all the money she earned from begging.
The two defendants also went to beg in Poland and Germany with plaintiffs G.E. and O.G. but they did not coerce or deceive them in order to accomplish this in any way.Show more
- ROU034Case CA Brasov 114
- RomaniaVerdict Date: 2008-11-10Sentence Date : 2008-11-10
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.Show more
- ROU043Case CA Alba 19A-2009
- RomaniaVerdict Date: 2009-10-07Sentence Date : 2009-10-07
- Victim E.H.F.
I.U.B. deceived victim E.H.F. with promises of a future together in Italy. The two were friends but then he phoned her from Italy offering a job there in a restaurant. In order to obtain the victim’s mother consent for the victim to go to Italy, defendant I.U.B.’s mother stepped in and convinced the victim’s mother of her son’s good intentions. The defendant sent the victim money to cover the cost for expedited passport processing. Once in Italy, she lived with E.D. and on the second day she was there, defendant I.U.B. told her she was there to work in prostitution. He took her passport and other identification documents; she did not speak Italian. Against her will, she practiced prostitution for 3 months and gave the money to E.D., who would, in turn, give it to the “boss”. Defendant I.U.B. supervised the victim and ensured she served a certain number of clients. The victim was caught by the Italian police and sent back to Romania. Once in Romania, she stayed with defendant I.U.B.’s parents for 3 weeks and never told her mother about what happened until her mother found out that her daughter was pregnant. They then contacted a lawyer and the police.
- Victim M.M.D.
M.M.D. was a grade 9 student (approximately 16 years old at the time of the offence in 2006) who had expressed a desire to go abroad for work. Through an intermediary, the victim met defendant V.U.E. who promised her a job in Italy. Since the victim’s mother refused to let her go, the defendant brought in defendant E.F., who they claimed was his cousin, to convince her. In August 2006, the victim left Romania with E.F. In Italy, she lived with victim E.H.F. Similarly to E.H.F., her passport and documentation papers were taken from her; she did not speak Italian. The victim was caught by the Italian Police and sent back to Romania, where defendant E.F.’s family was waiting for her.Show more
- ROU042Case CA Alba 20A-2009
- RomaniaVerdict Date: 2009-10-09
The first two defendants were de facto married, and the third defendant was their son; they recruited several persons (among which children and women) and promised them a job in Spain. Instead, they would transport the victims to Spain and force them to work for different Spanish entrepreneurs or to beg for the defendants’ profit.
The victims were permanently controlled and the money they earned was taken by the defendants; the victims were also subject to threats to ensure they would not escape.Show more
- ROU041Case CA Craiova 26-2008
- RomaniaVerdict Date: 2008-06-17Sentence Date : 2008-06-17
In April 2002, co-defendants S.M.P and S.F.E. left Romania and rented a “living space” in town E. in Italy. Throughout 2003-2004, the three co-defendants recruited, transported, harboured and transferred several young women -including victims E.N.B., M.S.N. and U.M,- to Italy for the purpose of sexual exploitation. In September 2003, defendant S.M.P. took advantage of the poor financial situation of U.M.’s family, and in the presence of her family, proposed to take U.M. to Italy to find her a job. S.M.P. said he would pay the cost for all the necessary documentation and other expenses. Once in Italy, however, he did not find her the promised job, but rather told her that she should engage in prostitution. U.M. refused and she had to resort to begging in the streets. During this time, she paid the proceeds from her begging to defendant S.F.E.’s concubine. While these facts were established during the investigation, and through U.M.’s testimony, U.M. subsequently retracted her testimony and tried to exonerate the defendants claiming that the initial incriminating testimony was a result of her fear that she would get into trouble with the police if she did not say what they wanted to hear. In October, 2004, defendant S.F.E. took advantage of victim M.S.’ family situation, proposed to take her to Italy where he would find her a job, confirming that he would take care of all costs and that she would not be prostituting herself or begging. After a month in Italy, S.F.E. had still not found her a job and, when M.S. confronted him, he told her that she would have to prostitute herself. She prostituted herself for 45 days and she gave half of the proceeds to S.F.E. Similarly to U.M., M.S. recanted her initial testimony in which she incriminated the defendants. She claimed that upon arriving in Bucharest she was ill (cardiac problems and other health issues) and that this is why she testified that she had been compelled by defendant S.F.E. to prostitute herself.
In the summer of 2004, S.F.E.’s concubine and S.U.’s wife tried to persuade victim E.N.B. to go to Italy where they guaranteed her a job; the victim refused because she feared the prospect of prostitution. Nevertheless, co-defendants S.U. and S.F.E. convinced the victim and her parents to send the victim to Italy. Once she arrived in Italy, defendant S.F.E. told her that he could not find a job for her and that she had to prostitute herself. In order to pay back the defendant, the victim prostituted herself for approximately one month in 2005, after which she was sold to an Albanian panderer. E.N.B. confirmed that victim M.S., along with other girls, had engaged in prostitution.Show more
- ROU049Case CA Iasi 4-2008
- RomaniaVerdict Date: 2008-01-17Sentence Date : 2006-09-25
The defendants recruited,transported, and harboured several victims with the purpose of sexually exploiting them abroad. The victims received false promises regarding well paid jobs abroad. The defendants took advantage of the victims’ vulnerability due to their tender age, indigent background and lack of employment opportunities.Show more
- ROU048Case CA Alba 25A-2008
- RomaniaVerdict Date: 2008-03-19Sentence Date : 2008-03-17
The defendant recruited and transported several persons of gipsy ethnicity, some of them underage, to France, under the pretext of finding them jobs in agriculture. Once in France, he forced them to go and beg in the streets for his own profit. The defendant recruited the victims from the community where he lived. Apart from jobs, some of the victims were promised money, electronic devices and clothes.Show more
Filter Results by:
- ► Country (1)
- ► Decision/Verdict Date (6)
- ► Sentenced Date (7)
- ► Victim's Nationality (1)
- ► Victim's Gender / Child (3)
- ► Defendant's Nationality (2)
- ► Defendant's Gender (2)
- ► Verdict (3)
- ► Appellate Decision (3)
- ► Court (20)
- Alba Court of Appeals (1)
- Alba Iulia Court of Appeals (3)
- Alba Iulia Court of Appeals, Minors and Family Division (1)
- Bacău Court of Appeals (1)
- Brașov Court of Appeals (4)
- Cluj Court of Appeals (1)
- Court of Appeal Bacau (1)
- Craiova Court of Appeals (4)
- Craiova Court of Appeals, Minors and Family Division (1)
- Curtea de Apel Iasi (1)
- Curtea de Apel Ploiesti (1)
- Curtea de Apel Timisoara (1)
- Galati Court of Appeals, Penal Division (1)
- High Court of Cassation (1)
- High Court of Cassation and Justice (12)
- Iasi Court of Appeals (1)
- Pitesti Court of Appeals (1)
- Ploiesti Court of Appeals (2)
- Supreme Court of Justice (12)
- Timisoara Court of Appeals (1)
- ► Legal System (1)
- ► Latest Court Ruling (2)
- ► Type of Court/Tribunal (1)
- ► Keyword (28)
- Abduction (7)
- Abuse of power or a position of vulnerability (24)
- Agriculture (1)
- Article 3, Trafficking in Persons Protocol (19)
- Article 5, Trafficking in Persons Protocol (19)
- Article 6 UNTOC (1)
- Begging (12)
- Commercial sexual exploitation (40)
- Deception (37)
- Domestic servitude (2)
- Exploitation of the prostitution of others or other forms of sexual exploitation (43)
- Forced labour or services (9)
- Fraud (15)
- Giving or receiving payments or benefits to achieve the consent of a person having control over another person (5)
- Harbouring (28)
- Hotel/Restaurant/Bar (1)
- Internal (15)
- Mutual legal assistance (3)
- Organized Criminal Group (9)
- Other (3)
- Other sectors (1)
- Receipt (13)
- Recruitment (48)
- Servitude (5)
- Threat or use of force or other forms of coercion (39)
- Transfer (18)
- Transnational (38)
- Transportation (41)