Some important research phases generated the conclusion that art.190 PC RM, not art 326 PC RM, is to be applied in the situation when the offender mistakenly insists that he has any type of influence on the public servant, and he never proclaimed it properly. In this type of cases, the main goal of the offender is to get illicitly the money or other means that are handed over to him, and not just to bring to bear on the public servant. It is proven that the responsibility for the swindle offence cannot be applied if the trade of the falsified goods or the performance of adulterated services are committed in the produces and services consumption sphere, by the persons which deploy legal trade activity or some other service performance. In such situations, we apply art.2141, 255 PC RM or point 2) art.273, art.283, par.(4) art.284 from the Contravention Code. As well, is argued that in case of fraud offence, infraction of faith cannot be located as a swindle offence approach. Nevertheless, the elimination proposal of the incriminatory disposal concerning the “infraction of faith” collocation is not justified.