- RomaniaSentence Date : 2009-10-26
The defendant recruited the victim I.C. proposing a job in England, as he presumably had a friend there who could help her find a well paid job. I.C. accepted. Meanwhile, I.C. met D.M.D., the second victim, who was underage at the moment, and to whom she told about the possibility to work in England. D.M.D. also accepted to go with I.C. to England, but she needed her father’s consent as she was underage and did not had a passport. I.C. went to her home and convinced D.M.D.’s father to let her go to England, using a lie about winning a foreign languages contest. Her father gave his consent under an authentic declaration but rapidly changed his mind. Meanwhile, D.M.D. was already gone. The two young women crossed the Romanian border and arrived in Dieppe, France, where they received false Lithuanian passports. They embarked on a ferry to Paris, but the local authorities discovered the forgery and retained them a couple of days. After this, they are given false Norwegian passports and cross the border in England. On Jersey island they meet the defendant who accommodates them in a house where lived other young women. Here they have been told that they have to practice prostitution, that their Romanian passports were taken away and that they could not return to Romania. D.M.D. refused to prostitute and eventually managed to escape from the location and contacted the local police.
The Supreme Court of Justice maintained the first instance’s decision to convict the defendant for 2 years imprisonment for human and juvenile trafficking. It was not relevant that one of the victims, I.C, practiced prostitution without opposing. Also, it was not relevant that she helped the defendant by convincing D.M.D.’s father to let her go to England. However, mitigating circumstances were retained.Show more
- RomaniaVerdict Date: 2003-05-21Sentence Date : 2003-05-23
During December 2001-13 March 2002, the victim was held against her will in the home of the defendant in Targoviste, and was forced into prostitution by the defendant. During the entire course of the judicial investigation, the defendant had an insincere attitude. Witnesses stated that the defendant exercised violence, physical and mental pressure against the victim.
The Court has seized RON 300 from the defendant, as the amount was gained from the committing of the crime.Show more
- ROU017117/ 2004
- RomaniaVerdict Date: 2004-06-16Sentence Date : 2004-06-16
The defendants met in Germany, where D.L. and R.E. were part of an international network of human trafficking.The two defendants came to Romania in March 2002 with the purpose of recruiting young women in view of practicing prostitution. Their trip was paid by other persons that were part of the network, who frequently sent money to R.E. to recruit young women, to pay their passports and other documents and to transport them to Germany. Although he didn’t posses a driver’s license, the defendant R.E. entered Romania by car, with a gas gun hidden under his seat. He went to Iasi, where D.L. contacted defendant M.V. to connect him to local persons that were practicing human trafficking. That is how they met victim M.G. to whom they proposed to go to Germany, where they will assure her a job. The victim was accommodated to several locations, the last one being a local motel, where subsequently were brought six other young women. The defendants eventually told the victims they will practice prostitution. After recruiting the victims, the defendants, through several other persons obtained passports and ID cards for the girls, bought them clothes and provided for during their stay at the motel.
In August 2002 two defendants, along with three victims, tried to cross the Romanian border by car. Before leaving, D.L. hid R.E.’s gun at the root of a tree, where was subsequently found by the police. They were all found at the border, and, following a raid at the motel, the other victims were also detected.Show more
- RomaniaVerdict Date: 2004-04-22Sentence Date : 2003-04-16
The courts ultimately held that the defendant, together with other persons (i.e. his brother – I.O., I.M. – nephew, V.G., I.E. – his wife, A.R. – his son, I.F. – his daughter) have perpetrated various forms of human trafficking.
V.G. had formerly been employed at the bar owned by I.M., nephew of the defendant. The defendant asked V.G. to recruit persons suffering from various disabilities in order to force them to perform street begging in France.
The victim T.G. suffered from the disability of missing the lower left leg. He was recruited through false promises to the effect that he would benefit from a prosthesis, receive free meals and that he would benefit from half of the revenues earned from begging once he would pay his debts to the defendant (these included passport fees, transportation fees, a loan of US 100). When the victim changed his mind about going to France, he was threatened into accepting. The victim begged for approximately 60 days, earning around EUR 100-150 per day (a total of approximately EUR 6000). The entire amounts obtained would go to the defendant’s wife, and the victim would benefit only from a daily meal and endure improper conditions.
Another victim, P.M.C., was recruited by the defendant’s wife from a Bucharest tram station and transported in France.
Also, victim – C.C., recruited by I.O., died in Italy, on the way to France.
The victims and their respective relatives suffered threats during the trial or were promised money in order to change their depositions.Show more
- ROU001107/A - 2008
- RomaniaVerdict Date: 2008-06-26Sentence Date : 2008-03-14
In 2002, the defendant met the victim E.N.J. and they began a relationship. In November 2002 the two, together with the defendant’s family went to France. Once they got there, E.N.J was threatened and forced to go with them and practice begging on the streets. E.N.J stayed in France for 3 months until her parents called the parents of the defendant and asked them to return their daughter to the country, or they will tell the police about the situation. Apparently, the victim was beaten and the lesions were still visible and so she was sequestered for a week in an apartment in Timisoara until she would heal.
Meanwhile, the defendant started a relationship with another underage woman, and also brought her to France where she was forced to practice begging. She was also taken to Spain and Belgium where she practice begging with the family of the defendant. During the three years she stayed with the defendant and his family, the victim had a child with the defendant. After having the child she was forced to go out in the streets with the child and beg. The victim was permanently supervised by the defendant and his family and she talked to her parents in Romania only in the presence of the defendant and his family. Once he managed to phone in Romania and talk to her parents alone, she told them what was happening in France, and her father came to France and took her back to Romania.Show more
- RomaniaVerdict Date: 2008-10-11Sentence Date : 2008-10-11
The defendant phoned the victim and proposed her to come to work in Italy, promising transportation and housing. The victim was in a vulnerable position, without financial means fro herself and her minor child. The defendant sent the victim the money for transportation and upon arrival, he took her passoport, telling her that he will return to her when she pays back all the money and that she has to have sexual relationship with two brothers. After the victim refuses, the defendant beat her up and forced to have sexual relations. After two months, the victim managed to escape from the flat, being helped by an Italian citizen, who paid the defendant EUR 350 in exchange for the passport. One home, the victim filed a criminal complaint.
During the criminal investigation the relatives of the defendant attempted to convince the victim to withdraw her complaint.Show more
- RomaniaVerdict Date: 2008-04-24Sentence Date : 2006-02-15
The defendant met victim D.L.I., a high school student, via his girlfriend in the autumn of 2004. Aware of the victim’s indigent economic background, he made her a proposal to go to Spain where she would get help from a friend of the defendant in order to get a job as a domestic employee. The defendant took care of the formalities required for the departure of the victim, but eventually the victim did not leave the country due to the fact that the police was alerted by a friend of the victim.
M.E.A. was recruited in the autumn of 2002 by the defendant and two other persons with the purpose of sexually exploiting her in Italy. The victim agreed to make the journey proposed by the defendant as she was made to believe that she would be helped in order to get a job in Belgium. After obtaining the travel documentation, the victim was told the real purpose of her journey abroad, at which point she refused to go. In order to deliver herself from violence threats, the victim paid the defendant and his friends RON 200 (approximately USD 25).
Also, it was retained that in the year of 2003, the defendant recruited victim C.M.G., one of his high school classmates. Prior to transferring the victim to Spain for sexual exploitation, the defendant harboured her in his parents’ apartment. The victim accepted the proposal of travelling to Spain in order to be an escort lady and for a couple of months practiced prostitution in a night club.Show more
- RomaniaVerdict Date: 2008-10-20Sentence Date : 2008-10-20
After promising the victim a job as a room maid in Italy, the defendant paid the transport ticket for the victim, following that she will pay him EUR 700 after she will get a job. In Italy, the defendant accommodated the victim into a rented room, meanwhile trying to find a club where she could practice prostitution or an Italian to whom he could sell her for sexual exploitation. When hearing the defendant’s plans, the victim ran away. The defendant found her and convinced her to return using violence and threatening her he will not return her passport in order to get back home. Another victim, witness during the trial, paid the defendant in order to give her back the passport and send her to her mother in Belgium.
The defendant appealed the decision stating that the testimonies of the witnesses, upon which rests the case of the prosecution, do no corroborate and the prosecution material should be revised, but Iasi Court of Appeals rejected his appeal. Again, he appealed this decision at the Supreme Court of Justice, but his appeal was rejected and thus the decision remained definitive.Show more
- RomaniaVerdict Date: 2008-06-06Sentence Date : 2007-12-05
The court established that the victim, H.A.D., came to the city of Sibiu in the month of July of 2006. In the autumn of the same year, she lived for a period in the apartment owned by the defendant. Around December 2006, the victim returned to Sibiu and at that moment the defendant claimed the payment of the phone bill in amount of RON 700 (approximately USD 200) corresponding to the period the victim stayed in his apartment. Since the victim did not dispose of such sum of money, the defendant forced her to practice prostitution with men he would recruit. All the money resulting from such activity was retained by the defendant.
The defendant was caught in the act of charging a sum of money from an undercover investigator for the sexual services of the victim.Show more
- RomaniaSentence Date : 2009-10-13
During August – September 2005, O.C.R. illegally recruited two victims to whom he promised jobs in Spain. He sexually exploited the young women at his house in Romania and forced them to practice prostitution in Spain. N.V.I. helped the first defendant by supervision one of the victims when O.C.R. was away. Other factual elements were not disclosed in the Decision of the Supreme Court. The lower Court disposed the seizure of RON 2830 from O.C.R.
The laws applied were Law no. 678/2001 on preventing and combating human trafficking, the Romanian Criminal Code and the Romanian Criminal Procedure Code.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)