The examination of the forms and content of the offence prevented at art.190 PC RM, shows that while committing the offence of swindling the indirect indention cannot be developed. Also, the offence of swindling can be committed by premeditate intention and by volunteer intention as well. In the offence of swindling case the intention occurence is conceivable. When that’s going to happen, there would be no place for concourse of offences. The concourse will perform only headed by the norm which prevents the offence responsibility committed by occurrence intention and not by primary intention. In case of swindling and defalcation of foreign wealth commitment, the intention of these offences comprehends specific differences: the evasion intention occurs before the moment of wealth remittance toward the offender (in case of swindling) or after these moment (in case of defalcation of foreign wealth). At this point, it is important to notice that not only the reason of cupidity is the one to underline the offence of swindling, but and other reasons like fear, solidarity etc. and not the motive of cupidity, but the intention of cupidity is the obligatory mark of the offence of swindling subjective feature. Respectively, art.190 PC RM cannot be applied if the offender chases the intention of temporary usage.