The Directorate General for the Fight against Fiscal Fraud (DGAF) within ANAF, when it initiated thematic and unannounced inspections, did not in all cases carry out pre-on-site documentation on the fiscal situation and fiscal risk associated with the economic agents subject to control, it is stated in the message of the Accounting Chamber.

With regard to thematic, operational and unscheduled control actions, it was established that:

• not in all cases the content of the report indicated the purpose of the control or the description of the fact (actual cause) established by the inspectors for combating fraud;

• although in some control documents it was stated that protocols of document collection were drawn up, in reality they were not drawn up and documents were not collected;

• identified situations in which regulatory acts, which cannot be attributed to the responsibility of commercial companies, are mentioned in the prepared protocols in the section “Chapter II – Violated norms of legislation”.

With regard to the preparation of the protocol of detection and imposition of sanctions on offenses (PVKP) and/or the application of sanctions, the presence of such situations as:

• contra-conventional sanctions for actions established on the day of application of the sanction were applied;

• erroneous establishment of the quality of the active subject of the offense, if the PVKKD is composed of authorized natural persons, individual enterprises and family enterprises;

• the authorized actions were wrongly executed from a legal point of view;

• the size of the applied punishment is not correlated with the degree of social danger of the committed act;

• drafting of the Criminal Procedure Code for proceedings against offenders who do not meet the characteristics of offenses;

• heterogeneous practice regarding the application of illegal sanctions for the same act.

Regarding records and insurance measures, the following was established:

• delays from 20 to 297 days in the execution of control documents and the establishment of preventive measures for 10 taxpayers, after the establishment of accounting;

• the unfoundedness of the decisions on taking insurance measures revealed by the controlling authorities in some cases, respectively, the threat of the debtor evading criminal liability, hiding, possibly, the embezzlement of property.

Regarding the capitalization of control results/actions, it was found that:

• in some cases, the declaration of inactivity is made with a delay of up to 375 days from the date of drawing up the protocol;

• at the DGAF level, the Checklist of measures for the capitalization of anti-fraud control, which is a mandatory document, is not compiled in all situations;

• in case of control actions at the end of the action, the documents prepared by the anti-fraud inspectors were not uploaded to the ACVILA computer application, which affects the subsequent assessment of the fiscal risk for the relevant taxpayers;

During the compilation of criminal proceedings, it was established that:

• in some situations, criminal statements were made without taking into account all the provisions of the legislation in this field when justifying them;

• the deadlines for drawing up draft documents for notifying the criminal investigation authorities and sending them to the competent structures were not met, accordingly, the delay compared to the deadlines provided for in the operational procedure (PO-44.07);

• the criteria of expediency in the organization of activities, respectively, the priority of documents reported to the criminal investigation authorities, according to the seriousness of the facts or the amount of damage caused to the consolidated State Budget, were not always analyzed by the management staff at DGAF.

Regarding the use of the available time fund, it is established:

• the duration of certain anti-fraud controls;

• inefficient use of the time fund by structures with control posts of ANAF in terms of checking the same operations and/or the same financial periods;

• the use of the number of anti-fraud inspectors per action, disproportionate to the complexity of the work;

• detection of control measures, in which a significantly large number of intermediate control acts have been drawn up.