Director of Public Prosecutions v Boureanu: Confiscation orders and the meaning of conviction

The Crown Court at Southwark has clarified the application of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (External Requests and Orders) Order 2005 in enforcing foreign confiscation orders where the underlying conviction has been affected by procedural developments in the requesting state.

Cristian-Alexandru Boureanu, a former Romanian parliamentarian, was convicted of influence peddling in March 2022 by the High Court of Cassation and Justice in Romania. The trial court found he had received EUR 2,111,799.71 between 2010 and 2013 in exchange for exerting influence over Romanian officials regarding infrastructure contracts. A confiscation order was made for this sum, with freezing orders maintained over accounts at Bilderlings Pay Limited held in Boureanu's name and that of Intermell Limited.

On appeal in May 2023, whilst the court confirmed Boureanu had committed the offence, it terminated criminal proceedings due to the expiry of an eight-year limitation period. The confiscation order was nevertheless upheld as a "security measure" under Romanian law, which can be imposed even when no sentence is activated.

The Director of Public Prosecutions sought to register and enforce the confiscation order in England. Boureanu contested registration, arguing that because his conviction was quashed on appeal, the statutory condition in article 21(2) of the 2005 Order was not satisfied. He produced a certificate showing no criminal record and maintained the Romanian authorities had misrepresented the position.

His Honour Judge Baumgartner rejected this argument, applying the two-stage test established in Dines v DPP [2020] 1 WLR 3007. The court must first determine whether there was a conviction under the law of the requesting state, then assess whether this constitutes a conviction for the purposes of article 21(2) under English law.

The Romanian authorities clarified that whilst the custodial sentence could not be imposed, the appellate court had expressly found Boureanu guilty of influence peddling. The confiscation order required a finding that criminal conduct had occurred and could only be made following such a determination.

Judge Baumgartner held that "conviction" in article 21(2) must be interpreted by reference to substance rather than labels. The word is ambiguous in English law and context-dependent, but typically involves either a finding or admission of guilt in criminal proceedings. Both the trial and appeal courts had found Boureanu guilty to the criminal standard.

Adopting the purposive approach endorsed in Wieromiejczyk v DPP [2025] 1 WLR 1111, the court concluded the external order was made consequent upon a conviction. This interpretation aligned with article 670(5)(d) of the Trade and Cooperation Agreement, which permits refusal of requests not relating to "a previous conviction, or a decision of a judicial nature... that an offence... [has] been committed, on the basis of which the confiscation has been ordered".

The court rejected Boureanu's attempts to challenge the legitimacy of the funds, noting this was not a matter for the English court. Both Romanian courts had determined he was the beneficial owner of funds held in Intermell's account, making them "realisable property" within the meaning of article 49(1) of the 2005 Order.

A receiver was appointed to enforce the confiscation order against property totalling EUR 1,684,795.17 held in the two Bilderlings accounts. The judgement confirms that English courts will give effect to foreign confiscation orders based on findings of criminal conduct, even where procedural rules in the requesting state prevent the imposition of custodial sentences.