A Romanian community member facing criminal charges in the United States navigates two legal systems at once — the substantive criminal law of California or the federal courts, and the parallel framework of immigration, international cooperation, consular notification, and language access that runs alongside every case involving a non-citizen or foreign-national defendant. Nic Cocis is a Romanian-born criminal defense attorney with over 25 years of California practice and a federal practice that reaches U.S. District Courts nationwide. The firm represents Romanian community clients across California — with its home base in Southwest Riverside County serving Murrieta, Temecula, Menifee, Lake Elsinore, Wildomar, Winchester, Canyon Lake, and French Valley, with Southwest Riverside County matters proceeding through the Southwest Justice Center in Murrieta — and statewide reach into San Diego, Orange County, Los Angeles, San Bernardino, Riverside, Sacramento, San Francisco, and Santa Clara counties. Federal cases proceed in the U.S. District Court of jurisdiction wherever the case is venued, including federal districts well beyond California where Romanian-community clients are charged.
A Romanian-Born Attorney Practicing California Criminal Defense
Nic Cocis grew up in communist Romania, in a legal system that functioned as an instrument of state power rather than a check on it. Defendants under that regime were denied access to counsel, denied meaningful discovery, denied the presumption of innocence, and denied the right to challenge the state’s evidence. What stood against that system — barely — were defense attorneys who took the cases of dissidents, journalists, religious minorities, and ordinary people accused of political offenses, often at significant personal risk. That experience shaped the decision to practice criminal defense in the United States, where due process, the right to counsel, and the presumption of innocence are constitutional commitments rather than aspirations. The longer version of that origin story, and the methodology that came out of it, is on the firm’s criminal defense approach page.
The Romanian dimension of the practice is not incidental. The firm provides direct representation in Romanian throughout the case — at the initial consultation, at the police interview if one occurs after counsel is retained, at attorney-client conferences during discovery and motion practice, at plea allocution, at sentencing allocution, and on appeal. The firm also practices in English and Spanish.
Federal Statutes That Dominate Romanian-Community Cases
Federal investigations involving Romanian-community defendants in the United States cluster around a defined set of statutes, almost all of them in the financial-crime category. Understanding which statute is charged — and which is not — is the first piece of strategic information in any case.
18 U.S.C. § 1029 — Access device fraud. The primary federal statute for card skimming, ATM cloning, EBT (Electronic Benefits Transfer) card fraud, gift card fraud, and credit card cloning operations. Subsections (a)(1) through (a)(10) cover different conduct: production of counterfeit access devices, trafficking in counterfeit devices, unauthorized use, possession of fifteen or more counterfeit devices, possession of device-making equipment, and others. Maximum penalties range from 10 to 20 years depending on subsection.
18 U.S.C. § 1344 — Bank fraud. Schemes to defraud financial institutions or to obtain property from financial institutions through false representations. 30-year maximum, $1,000,000 maximum fine per count. Bank fraud counts are often charged alongside access device fraud counts in skimming and check-fraud cases.
18 U.S.C. § 1028A — Aggravated identity theft. A mandatory two-year consecutive prison term added to any underlying felony where the defendant knowingly used a means of identification of another person without authorization. Because § 1028A runs consecutively to all other counts, it transforms what would otherwise be a Guidelines-based sentence into a fixed two-year-plus minimum on top of everything else. Frequently the controlling sentencing factor in skimming and identity-fraud cases.
18 U.S.C. § 371 — Conspiracy. The federal general conspiracy statute, often charged alongside the substantive offenses above. 5-year maximum unless the conspiracy is to commit a felony with a higher base maximum, in which case the conspiracy charge takes the underlying offense’s maximum.
18 U.S.C. §§ 1956, 1957 — Money laundering. Charged when the proceeds of underlying financial crimes are moved through accounts or transferred internationally. § 1956 reaches transactions designed to conceal source; § 1957 reaches monetary transactions over $10,000 involving criminally derived property. Twenty-year maximums.
18 U.S.C. § 1343 — Wire fraud. A general fraud statute that reaches almost any scheme to defraud conducted via interstate or international wire communication. Frequently charged in addition to or instead of bank fraud where the wire element is more clearly established than the bank-fraud element.
The firm’s Romanian-language bank fraud and card skimming defense guide — written in Romanian — covers these federal statutes and the defense framework that applies to them at substantially greater depth. Romanian-language readers will likely find the deeper treatment more useful in their first language.
Why Federal Court Is Different from State Court
Romanian community clients often experience federal court as an entirely separate legal system from California state court. That perception is accurate. Federal practice differs from state practice in ways that materially affect case strategy.
United States Sentencing Guidelines. Federal sentences are calculated through a Guidelines table that assigns points for offense conduct, criminal history, role in the offense, loss amount, number of victims, and a long list of other factors. The Guidelines are technically advisory after United States v. Booker (2005) but still anchor federal sentencing in nearly every case. Loss-amount calculations in financial-crime cases often dominate the Guidelines analysis, and Guidelines disputes are resolved at sentencing rather than at trial.
Federal Pretrial Services and detention. Bail in federal court is governed by 18 U.S.C. § 3142, which authorizes pretrial detention based on risk of flight or danger to the community. Non-citizen defendants face heightened detention risk because the government often argues that immigration consequences create flight incentive. Detention hearings happen within 3-5 days of arrest and require defense preparation that begins immediately.
Discovery under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 16, Brady, Giglio, and the Jencks Act. Federal discovery is differently structured than California state discovery and operates on different timelines. Mutual legal assistance treaty material — discussed below — flows through federal discovery in cases with international evidence.
Plea negotiation, proffer letters, and the cooperation framework. Federal cases resolve through a more structured negotiation framework than typical state cases — proffer agreements, queen-for-a-day letters, formal cooperation agreements, and the USSG § 5K1.1 substantial-assistance departure framework all govern the cooperation track. Decisions about whether to cooperate are made early, are largely irreversible, and require careful counseling that includes the cooperator’s safety and family considerations.
Immigration Consequences for Romanian Defendants
A criminal conviction can carry immigration consequences that exceed the criminal sentence in severity. Padilla v. Kentucky (2010) requires defense counsel to advise non-citizen defendants of the immigration consequences of a plea — but the advisal alone is not the defense. Coordination between criminal defense and immigration counsel is the defense.
Deportability under INA § 237(a)(2). Conviction of an aggravated felony, a crime involving moral turpitude (CIMT), or certain controlled-substance offenses can make a lawful permanent resident deportable. Most federal fraud convictions where the loss exceeds $10,000 qualify as aggravated felonies under INA § 101(a)(43)(M)(i). Removal becomes mandatory in most such cases, and judicial review is severely restricted.
Inadmissibility under INA § 212. Romanian community members in visa, parole, or other non-LPR status face a parallel inadmissibility framework. A conviction can render someone inadmissible — preventing re-entry to the U.S. after travel, preventing adjustment of status, and triggering removal proceedings.
Denaturalization risk for naturalized U.S. citizens. A conviction for an offense that pre-dated naturalization and was concealed during the naturalization process can support denaturalization proceedings under 8 U.S.C. § 1451. This pathway is rare but real, and the risk needs to be evaluated when a naturalized Romanian-community defendant faces federal charges.
Plea-bargain alternatives. The right criminal plea is often the one with the lowest immigration consequence rather than the one with the lowest criminal sentence. A plea to a non-aggravated-felony offense — even at slightly higher state or federal exposure — can preserve immigration status that an aggravated-felony plea would destroy. This calculation requires both criminal-defense and immigration-law analysis running together.
International Dimensions of Romanian Federal Cases
Federal cases involving Romanian-community defendants frequently involve international evidence, international witnesses, and international procedural frameworks that don’t appear in domestic-only cases.
U.S.-Romania Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty. The 1999 MLAT (modified by the 2007 protocol implementing the EU-U.S. MLAT) governs evidence-sharing between U.S. and Romanian authorities. Federal investigators routinely request bank records, telecommunications records, and witness statements from Romania through MLAT channels. MLAT-derived evidence is subject to discovery on the defense side, and challenges to its authentication, chain of custody, and admissibility are part of federal practice in international cases.
Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, Article 36. Romanian nationals arrested in the United States have the right to have the Romanian consulate notified of their arrest and to communicate with consular officers. Failure to provide Article 36 notification can support evidentiary motions, though the remedy after Sanchez-Llamas v. Oregon (2006) is limited. Consular notification is a procedural right that defense counsel should affirmatively raise at first appearance.
Interpol Red Notices and international arrest considerations. Romanian-community defendants with prior international travel — or with co-defendants outside the United States — sometimes face Interpol Red Notices that affect international travel after the case resolves. Romanian Red Notices, in particular, have been the subject of European-court litigation over the past decade, and a U.S. conviction can change the international travel landscape.
U.S.-Romania extradition treaty. The 1924 extradition treaty (modified by the 2007 EU-U.S. extradition protocol) governs extradition between the two countries. Romanian-community defendants who travel to Romania during the pendency of U.S. federal cases need to understand the extradition framework before they go.
The Firm’s Romanian-Language Practice
The Romanian-language dimension of the firm’s practice covers every stage of a case where language access matters most.
At the initial consultation, the firm conducts the entire conversation in Romanian if the client prefers. The substantive evaluation of charges, exposure, defenses, and resolution paths is identical to an English-language consultation — only the language differs.
During discovery and motion practice, attorney-client conferences happen in Romanian. Discovery documents in English are translated and discussed; questions about specific evidence are framed in the language the client thinks in. Defense strategy decisions — what to dispute, what to concede, whether to testify, whether to cooperate — are made with full client comprehension.
At plea and sentencing allocution, the firm coordinates court-certified interpreters where the court requires interpretation for the record, while ensuring that the substantive attorney-client work happens in Romanian outside the courtroom proceedings.
In Romanian-language federal cases anywhere in the United States, the firm has represented clients in jurisdictions including the Eastern District of New York, the Southern District of New York, the District of Columbia, and federal districts in the Midwest, in addition to the California federal districts. Federal practice does not require an attorney’s local office to be in the venue district; admission pro hac vice is routine.
California Geographic Scope and Nationwide Federal Practice
The firm’s California practice covers state-court matters in Southwest Riverside County (the primary practice area, with cases handled at the Southwest Justice Center in Murrieta) and extends across the state for Romanian-community matters in San Diego, Orange County, Los Angeles, San Bernardino, Riverside, Sacramento, San Francisco, and Santa Clara counties. The firm’s federal criminal defense practice is geographically broader, with admission to practice in U.S. District Courts across California and pro hac vice admission to federal districts nationwide as cases require.
For Romanian-community clients facing financial-crime charges, the firm’s white collar crimes practice and fraud sub-practice handle the state-level analogs of the federal statutes discussed above. The insurance fraud cornerstone walks through California’s PC § 550 framework and the carrier-SIU referral pipeline that occasionally crosses into Romanian-community cases.
When to Reach Out
Federal criminal investigations involving Romanian-community defendants are typically built over weeks or months before the defendant becomes aware of the case. A search warrant, a target letter from a U.S. Attorney’s Office, an interview request from federal investigators, a grand jury subpoena to a financial institution where the defendant holds accounts — any of these signals an active investigation. The right step in every case is to retain counsel before responding to any of them.
Call (951) 400-4357 to speak with the firm. Consultations are free, confidential, and protected by attorney-client privilege from the first call. The firm conducts initial consultations in Romanian or English, depending on the client’s preference. For more on the attorney and the firm, see the about page.
