Plagiarism allegations rock Romania’s justice minister

In a major investigative scoop by PressOne.ro, Romania’s Minister of Justice, Radu Marinescu, faces accusations of widespread plagiarism in his 2009 doctoral thesis, with over half of the document – 140 out of 247 pages – allegedly copied verbatim from other sources without proper attribution.

The revelations, published on 12 January, have sparked outrage and questions about academic integrity in Romanian politics, especially given Marinescu’s role overseeing the nation’s justice system.

In a follow-up analysis, PressOne senior editor Emilia Șercan lambasts the minister’s attempts to deflect responsibility through “lawyerly strategies,” positioning him as a symbol of impunity that undermines public trust.

Marinescu, a 52-year-old lawyer and politician from the Social Democratic Party (PSD), earned his PhD in Law from the University of Craiova’s Faculty of Law and Administrative Sciences. His thesis, titled The System of Evidence in Civil Proceedings, was supervised by the late Professor Ion Dogaru, a respected academic and corresponding member of the Romanian Academy.

Marinescu has built a career blending legal practice, academia, and politics: after graduating in 1995, he established a law firm in 1999, became a lecturer at Titu Maiorescu University’s Târgu Jiu branch in 2008 (a position requiring a doctorate), and entered politics as a Craiova local councilor in 2016. He was elected as a PSD deputy in December 2024 and appointed Justice Minister shortly after, reportedly with backing from influential PSD figures like Lia Olguța Vasilescu.

The plagiarism was uncovered through meticulous manual analysis by PressOne journalists, who compared a physical copy of Marinescu’s thesis with printed editions of suspected sources. Two key sources from 1996 and 1998 were not digitized, rendering anti-plagiarism software ineffective. The investigation revealed that 56.68% of the thesis consists of “copy-paste” content, often without quotation marks, citations, or inclusion in the bibliography. This includes mechanical errors like inconsistent footnotes, missing diacritics, and mismatched punctuation, suggesting hasty transcription – possibly by an assistant – without revision.

Specific evidence points to three primary sources:

The bulk, 62 pages, stems from Florea Măgureanu’s 1998 book Înscrisurile. Mijloace de probă în procesul civil (based on his 1997 thesis). For instance, pages 5-15 of Marinescu’s work mirror Măgureanu’s historical overview of evidence, including identical footnotes in some sections but omissions in others. This source is neither cited nor listed in the bibliography.
Another 26 pages are lifted from Maria Fodor’s 2006 Probele în procesul civil, with word-for-word copying, including footnotes using “op. cit.” abbreviations that make no sense without prior citations (which are absent). Fodor’s book appears in the bibliography but is cited only once.
A further 53 pages come from Radu Dumitru and Dan Tudurache’s 1996 Probele în procesul civil, uncited and unlisted, with minor reformulations but clear blocks of up to 25 consecutive pages duplicated.

Even the preface borrows over half a page from a 2008 co-authored work by Dogaru. The plagiarism extends to outdated communist-era case law from the 1950s-1960s, inherited without new analysis. PressOne contacted Marinescu on 11 January, prompting his denial: ” I do not consider that I plagiarized. That’s what I can tell you”. He emphasized the thesis was prepared “in accordance with the norms of the time” under Dogaru’s guidance, insisting it brought him no career benefits.

In her scathing op-ed, Șercan dissects Marinescu’s defences as evasive ” lawyerly strategies” designed to bury the scandal. Marinescu’s Facebook response questions the timing—”Why now? Why me?” – and frames the exposé as a political attack timed to disrupt his ministry’s prosecutor appointments. He dismisses the manual analysis for lacking software verification, redefines copying as “legal processing” involving “axiological and intellectual reconfiguration”, and cites a 2022 Constitutional Court (CCR) ruling prohibiting re-evaluations of theses’ “scientific value.” He also claims validation from the National Council for the Attestation of University Titles, Diplomas and Certificates (CNATDCU) and his doctoral committee absolves him.

Șercan counters these tactics point by point: plagiarism has been regulated since Romania’s 1996 authorship law and 2004 scientific conduct code, making “norms of the time” excuses invalid. Copying 25 consecutive pages with footnotes and errors isn’t intellectual work; software is merely a tool, useless without digitized sources. The CCR decision doesn’t bar ethical checks, and past validations don’t erase fraud. She accuses Marinescu of victimhood, cynically linking the scandal to unrelated PSD pressures, and notes an orchestrated online backlash against her, amplified by PSD allies and figures with criminal ties – earning him the moniker “idol of the crooks”.

The implications are profound for Romania’s justice system, already plagued by low public confidence (24% per a December 2025 CURS poll) amid scandals like the “Captured Justice” documentary.

Romania’s “Captured justice”: documentary sparks nationwide protests and demands for judicial reform

As Justice Minister, Marinescu oversees critical appointments to the General Prosecutor’s Office, DNA (anti-corruption body), and DIICOT (organized crime unit) – roles demanding unimpeachable integrity.

Șercan questions: “Can a Justice Minister who broke the law remain in office?”

The case highlights systemic issues in Romanian academia, where theses from 1990-2016 underwent spotty plagiarism checks despite 2021 funding. The University of Craiova has digitized few pre-2000 theses without verification.

No official probe has been announced, but the scandal could pressure President Nicușor Dan, who validated Marinescu’s appointment. In a nation grappling with corruption perceptions, this episode underscores the need for rigorous academic oversight in public life. PressOne’s revelations, Șercan argues, defend ” equity and correctness” – the core to justice itself.

Caption: A screenshot from a PressOne article describing plagiarism in the 2009 doctoral thesis of Romania’s Minister of Justice Radu Marinescu.