Seizure is regulated by Articles 208–220 of the Criminal Procedure Code and constitutes a means of obtaining evidence, aimed at the acquisition and preservation by the prosecuting authority of material evidence and items connected to, or deriving from, the criminal offence. Pursuant to Article 208 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the competent authority to order the seizure of material evidence or objects related to the criminal offence is the court, while in exceptional cases this competence lies with the prosecutor (Article 210 CPC).

The prosecuting authority may order the seizure of any movable or immovable property that is connected with the subject matter of proof in the criminal proceedings and which provides indications necessary for the fair resolution of the criminal case. The connection of items, documents, or objects with the criminal proceedings may vary: they may be instruments used to commit the offence, proceeds of crime, or items the possession or transfer of which in itself constitutes a criminal offence.

With regard to the evidentiary threshold, the systematic interpretation of Articles 208–220 CPC makes it clear that the common denominator guiding the authority’s decision is “the existence of reasonable grounds to believe that the items are connected to the criminal offence.”

Specifically:

Article 208/a regulates the seizure of computer data. According to this provision, in proceedings concerning offences in the field of information technology, the court, at the prosecutor’s request, may order the seizure of data and computer systems. Paragraph 2 further provides: “Where there are reasonable grounds to believe that the required computer data are stored in another computer system or part thereof, and such data are lawfully accessible from or available to the original system under control, the court, at the prosecutor’s request, shall immediately order the search or access to that system as well.”

Article 209 provides for the seizure of correspondence. Such seizure may be ordered only by court decision, and in urgent cases by the prosecutor. Here too, the governing standard is the “existence of reasonable grounds.” This means that the court’s decision must be supported by credible data and facts gathered by the judicial police up to that stage of the investigation, which collectively demonstrate that letters, securities, envelopes, packages, monetary or property values, telegrams, and other means of correspondence, sent by or addressed to the defendant—even under another name or through another person—are related to the criminal offence.

Articles 299–300 CPC provide for exceptions. In such cases, the collection of envelopes, correspondence, or the seizure of material evidence, where there is a risk of loss, may be undertaken on the initiative of the judicial police. For this purpose, the officers must draw up a record, which must be sent to the prosecutor within 48 hours; the prosecutor, within the following 48 hours, issues a reasoned decision confirming the seizure where the legal conditions exist.

It must be emphasized that even when correspondence is seized by order of the prosecutor or on the initiative of the judicial police, the standard of “reasonable grounds” remains unaffected. The exception is dictated solely by the risk of loss or destruction of the items concerned.

Finally, Article 210 CPC provides the court with the authority to order the seizure of bank documents, securities, funds deposited in current accounts, and any other assets, whenever there are reasonable grounds to believe that they are connected with the criminal offence, even if they do not belong to or are not registered in the defendant’s name. In urgent circumstances, such seizure may also be ordered by the prosecutor.