The ‘Berceni Vigilante’ and an accomplice were placed under house arrest after assaulting a man

“The Vigilante from Berceni,” known by this name online, and another man were placed under house arrest for 30 days on Tuesday, October 20, 2026, by a decision of the Ploiești District Court. The two are being investigated for unlawful deprivation of liberty and assault or other violence, after allegedly attacking a 25-year-old man whom they lured to a meeting under the pretext of a conversation with a minor.

According to investigators, the incident took place on the night of August 31, in the municipality of Ploiești. The two men allegedly pretended to be the 16-year-old girl who claimed that she had been raped by the young man. After allegedly meeting him, they reportedly blocked him in traffic, forcibly removed him from the car, and punched and kicked him.

The two were detained on Tuesday, and police conducted searches at their homes to seize evidence. The investigation into the alleged rape began on August 31. Police claim that the 25-year-old man allegedly had sexual intercourse with the minor against her will after meeting her on a social media network. The investigation continues under the coordination of the prosecutor handling the case.

Right of reply

Following the information that appeared in the press regarding the case in which I am being investigated for assault or other violence and unlawful deprivation of liberty, I would like to make several clarifications. First of all, no electroshock device was seized from my home. I was asked about a power supply for the LED lighting system that I use to film clips and which was believed to resemble an electroshock device. Also, the object presented as an “airsoft-type weapon with its corresponding ammunition” was, in reality, a non-functional airsoft replica. Under Law no. 295/2004, airsoft weapon replicas are classified in a category distinct from firearms, and merely possessing them does not amount to illegal possession of a firearm. No firearms license is required to possess them and, under Article 4(4) of the same law, no registration or authorization procedures are required. Regarding the incident that is the subject of the case, the idea has been circulated that I allegedly assaulted a person for several minutes, which is false from my point of view, since as early as the day after the incident, during a TikTok live stream, the person in question explicitly stated, several times, that I had not assaulted them. These statements can be verified in the recording of the broadcast, and I believe they are relevant to understanding the situation. I also dispute the presentation of the incident as if I had deprived that person of their liberty. Their car broke down while they were trying to leave, and after getting out of the car, they tried to assault my colleague, at which point I restrained them for a few seconds. After I helped them get up, they voluntarily remained beside me while we waited for the police crew, and even called their friends, whom they summoned to intimidate us. All of this can be seen in episode no. 237, published on my YouTube channel, Justițiarul de Berceni, at the end of September, and deserves to be analyzed in the context of the entire interaction, not separately from the rest of the footage. Also, when I was taken from my home and brought in for questioning, I did not have access to the recording of the TikTok live stream in which the person in question repeatedly stated that I had not assaulted them. I was only able to access the recording after returning home, and I intend to submit it as part of the appeal so that those statements can be analyzed alongside the other evidence in the case file. I request that this right of reply be published in order to ensure that the public is correctly informed and that my point of view is presented.