Călin Georgescu avoids preventive arrest because prosecutors at DIICOT failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a criminal offense occurred, according to court reasoning consulted by G4Media journalists. Bucharest Tribunal judges acknowledged that the financial prejudice calculated by prosecutors is substantial, yet they ruled it carries a significantly lower negative social resonance than other types of fraud.
Tribunal Reasoning on the Fraud Allegations
Magistrates directed the prosecution to intensify its efforts and administer additional evidence. The court wants to establish the exact existence and concrete execution methods of the alleged fraud, rather than merely assuming a simple criminal participation of multiple persons as authors, instigators, or accomplices. Judges specifically asked prosecutors to clarify whether the dispute involves criminal fraud or simply a breach of a commercial contract.
The court also instructed prosecutors to outline the specific role, plan, and relationships among the defendants. This need for clarity grows stronger as Georgescu maintains that he does not know Massimiliano Arena, an Italian national involved in the case.
Judicial Control Versus Preventive Arrest
Judges noted that Georgescu holds no restrictive measures in two other ongoing files and could have left the country if he chose to do so. Even so, the court imposed judicial control instead of lifting all restrictions. This decision stems from wiretapped conversations featuring Georgescu discussing the acquisition of a villa in Tuscany, Italy.
The bench ruled against preventive arrest because the investigation has lasted for several years without any urgent need to prevent ongoing illicit acts. Prosecutors and investigators conducted their work properly while the defendants remained free. Throughout the multi-year inquiry, the defendants did not leave Romania, derail the investigation, or attempt to influence witnesses.
The court compared the financial prejudice to other deceptive schemes, noting that while the sum is large, it did not devastate personal savings in the way victims lose money during fraudulent holiday or automobile purchases. A definitive decision on the matter is expected on Tuesday, when DIICOT will ask the court to place the pro-Russian politician in preventive arrest for 30 days, while Georgescu will request the removal of his judicial control.
Judicial Background of Judge Vlad Andriescu
G4Media reported on September 22 that magistrate Vlad Andriescu of the Bucharest Tribunal issued the judicial control ruling for Călin Georgescu. Andriescu also serves as the judge presiding over the criminal case of Dan Dungaciu, who later became the number two figure in the extremist AUR party. Specialists consulted by G4Media in December 2025 pointed out that the magistrate delayed motivating his solution for more than a year, pushing past the point of potential criminal liability prescription.
In April 2024, the DNA sent Dan Dungaciu to trial for abuse in service.
Andriescu pronounced a solution on September 23, 2024, confirming the legality of the administrative evidence, criminal prosecution acts, and the referral of the indictment to the court. Although the law requires the publication of the reasoned decision within 30 days, Andriescu left the ruling unmotivated until journalist Sorin Semeniuc highlighted the delay in G4Media in December 2025. The magistrate published his reasoning two weeks after the article appeared.
Past High-Profile Cases Handled by the Magistrate
Journalist Alex Costache noted in G4Media that Vlad Andriescu ordered the arrest of former PDL deputy Alin Trăşculescu in 2012 and upheld the arrest of businessman Nelu Iordache in the Nădlac-Arad highway case. Andriescu initially sentenced Nelu Iordache to 6 years and 3 months in prison, a term later increased to 11 years and 9 months of detention by the Bucharest Court of Appeal.
In 2018, Andriescu allowed Florin Secureanu, the former manager of Malaxa Hospital, to travel to Bari, Italy, though the Bucharest Court of Appeal overturned that permission. That same July, the judge rejected a request from the Capital Prosecutor’s Office to arrest the Bonciu brothers, who were suspected of murdering two security guards at a cement factory in Bucharest and committing a similar murder in 2017.
The Judicial Inspection previously investigated Vlad Andriescu in two matters. The first inquiry focused on the repeated failure to draft judicial decisions within the legal timeframe, in some instances for extended periods. The second inquiry resulted in an official warning over repeatedly delaying pronouncements for long stretches. Andriescu contested the sanction, and the High Court of Cassation and Justice annulled it through a definitive decision in December 2024. Court portal records also show Andriescu filing multiple requests for the recalculation of his judicial salary.
Frequently Asked Questions About the Călin Georgescu Judicial Control Case
Why did judges refuse the DIICOT request for preventive arrest?
Judges ruled that the evidence submitted by DIICOT does not establish beyond a reasonable doubt that a criminal offense occurred. They also found no urgency to prevent further illicit acts since the investigation has proceeded smoothly for years without the defendants fleeing or tampering with witnesses.
What specific concerns did the Bucharest Tribunal raise about the prosecution’s case?
The court instructed prosecutors to clarify whether the situation involves criminal fraud or a broken commercial contract. Judges also asked investigators to establish the concrete plan, individual roles, and relationships among the defendants.
When will the final decision on preventive arrest be made?
A definitive decision is expected on Tuesday, when DIICOT will push for a 30-day preventive arrest for Călin Georgescu, while the politician’s legal team will ask to lift his judicial control.
Worth a look