Law does obviously not benefit from the privilege of having its own exhaustive language. We might say that most concepts used in law are borrowed from other branches of knowledge. The quite rare concepts that are its own often do not receive a definition that can be classified, according to the methodology of the act of definition itself, as “legal”. The amalgamation of legal terminology with the economic, political, sociological or philosophical terminology, without revising the concepts and without their clear understanding in the areas of knowledge from where they come makes the doctrine and the case law too often flat and stereotyped, if not even chaotic from the conceptual point of view. Lawyers are no longer seen as persons of learning, who try to explain the nature of things through justice, but as simple technicians, who apply concepts taken from other social-human sciences. Under these conditions, one of the fundamental problems for lawyers is to explain a fact that seems to be overlooked by our current culture: what is meant by a legal concept? Afterward, it becomes equally important to understand the way in which the non-legal concepts used in law should be revised, namely what the standards of the legal definition of concepts are. The above-mentioned article attempts to answer to these challenges.

The author performs a thorough analysis of the legal content regarding the crime of fraud, provided at art. 244 of the new Criminal Code, with frequent references to the domestic judicial practice and compared with the new criminal dispositions. With respect to the normative proceedings set forth at par. 3, 4 and 5 of art. 215 of the Criminal Code adopted on 1968, abolished by the new regulation, the author believes they have not been abrogated and they shall be found as factual methods in the legal content of the crime of fraud, provided at art. 244 of the new Criminal Code, as long as the other incrimination requirements therein indicated will be accomplished. However, the author expresses some reserves regarding removal of the circumstance from the fraud ks aggravated content, when it generates highly serious consequences, as well as regarding the oversized reduction of the special limits for the penalty provided for this serious crime. Furthermore, the object of criminal protection, the crime ks subjects, the objective and subjective aspect, the forms, methods, sanctions and some procedural aspects regarding the felony set forth at art. 244 of the new Criminal Code are examined. Moreover, the author does not hesitate to express his point of view regarding the constitutional content of this criminal felony and to suggest some solutions and own opinions.

In terms of the decision not to initiate criminal proceedings, ordered by the Prosecutor during the stage of preliminary documents, it is mandatory to communicate the decision to the prejudiced person, indicter and perpetrator, if known, and the deadline of 20 days for filing the complaint with the Prosecutor’s Office runs from the date of serving the decision. For the people who consider themselves injured as to their legitimate interests by the adoption of the decision not to initiate court proceedings, there is neither the obligation, nor the opportunity for the communication thereof and, in this case, the 20-day deadline for filing the complaint against the decision runs from the date on which the person entitled was informed, in any way, about the adoption of the decision in question.