Decision No. 10/7 of 24 February 2026 regarding the preliminary request by FINANCECASA SRL to annul CNPF Decision No. 3/2 of 20 January 2026 imposing a coercive fine

REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA
NATIONAL COMMISSION OF THE FINANCIAL MARKET
77 Stefan cel Mare si Sfant Blvd., Chisinau, MD 2012, tel: (373 22) 859 401, www.cnpf.md, e-mail: office@cnpf.md

DECISION
24 February 2026 No. 10/7

Regarding the Preliminary Request submitted by "FINANCECASA" SRL, regarding the annulment of Decision No. 3/2 of the National Commission of the Financial Market dated 20.01.2026 concerning the application of a coercive fine to "FINANCECASA" SRL for non-execution of certain decisions of the National Commission of the Financial Market

On 10.02.2026, within the framework of the National Commission of the Financial Market (CNPF/supervisory authority), the Preliminary Request, submitted by "FINANCECASA" SRL (participant/entity), was registered (No. 832), by which the following are requested:

"1. The total annulment of the illegal individual administrative act, namely the CNPF Decision No. 3/2 of 20 January 2026.
2. The suspension of the execution of CNPF Decision No. 3/2 of 20 January 2026."
(the Preliminary Request).

In this case, it should be noted that, in order to ensure a full, objective and transparent investigation, which would provide the real possibility of analyzing the participant's claim, it is communicated to them that the examination of the factual and legal circumstances relevant to the case, in preliminary order, is carried out by distinguished executors within the CNPF.

In fact, on 20.01.2026, the CNPF adopted Decision No. 3/2 regarding the application of a coercive fine to "FINANCECASA" SRL for non-execution of certain decisions of the National Commission of the Financial Market (Decision No. 3/2/2026/Contested Decision), according to which the entity was imposed a coercive fine in the amount of 1,050 conventional units, equivalent to 52,500 MDL.

In this context, prior to the application of the coercive fine, in accordance with Art. 185 of the Administrative Code, the CNPF, by Decision No. 58/9 regarding the summons for execution by "FINANCECASA" SRL of certain decisions of the Commission National of the Financial Market, adopted on 02.12.2025, summoned the entity to execute the established obligations, granting it a term of 10 days and warning it about the application of a coercive fine, in case of non-execution.

Not agreeing with Decision No. 3/2/2026, the participant submitted a Preliminary Request, by which it requests the annulment of the contested Decision, as well as the suspension of its execution.

As a subsidiary measure, the request for suspension of the execution of Decision No. 3/2/2026 (point 2 of the Preliminary Request) was rejected by CNPF Decision No. 8/1 of 17.02.2026.

By analyzing the arguments presented in the Preliminary Request, in light of the legal provisions applicable to the case, it will be assessed whether they are of a nature to overturn the findings of the supervisory authority, as follows:

1. In law, Art. 19 of the Administrative Code provides that "The Preliminary Request
   is the institution that offers a pre-litigation path for the resolution of administrative disputes.", and Art. 162 para. (1) and para. (3) of the same law stipulate that "(1) The preliminary procedure aims to verify the legality of individual administrative acts. [...] (3) The Preliminary Request may be directed to:
   a) the total or partial annulment of an illegal or null individual administrative act; [...]".

2. Under the conditions of Art. 166 of the Administrative Code, "The Preliminary Request may be
   submitted only if the person claims rights violated by the issuance or rejection of the issuance of an individual administrative act.", and in accordance with Art. 167 para. (1) and para. (3) of the same law, "(1) If it considers the preliminary request as admissible and well-founded, the issuing public authority annuls the contested individual administrative act total or partial or issues the requested individual administrative act. [...] (3) The issuing public authority resolves the preliminary request within 15 calendar days. The provisions of Art. 60 para.(2) – (5) apply accordingly.".

3. On the subject, it should be highlighted that the participant invokes, as a ground for total annulment of
   Decision No. 1/2/2026 regarding the application of a coercive fine to "CASH&GO" SRL for non-execution of certain decisions of the National Commission of the Financial Market, the fact that it did not receive and never took notice of some alleged decisions, whereas the company "FINANCECASA" SRL no longer engages in lending, does not represent a non-banking credit organization, a fact confirmed by the copy of the extract from the State Register of legal persons and the Notification of the NBM dated 25.06.2024 regarding the exclusion of the company from the register of NBOs.

4. In this case, examining the circumstances of the cause, the supervisory authority
   finds that the entity's allegations cannot be retained as plausible, as all unexecuted decisions were communicated to it using the same means of communication, namely through the electronic mail addresses of "FINANCECASA" SRL [...] and [...], addresses which, moreover, are indicated by the participant in the Preliminary Request, as a valid means of communication.

5. Under these conditions, as well as taking into account the fact that the participant
   itself acknowledges the effective receipt of some decisions communicated in the same way, the ground invoked in point 3 cannot be assessed as truthful, credible and likely to justify the annulment of the Contested Decision.

6. With reference to the participant's statement that all credit contracts,
   regarding which the CNPF issued unexecuted decisions, were subject to court control by filing lawsuits against debtors, where the courts expressed themselves on the amounts that debtors are to repay, such that the prescription of certain actions by the CNPF, which contradict some irrevocable decisions of the courts, are a priori illegal, it should be noted that the decision on a debt collection action does not equate, by itself, to an express finding of the conformity of the total cost of credit or the total value payable by the consumer with the legal limits established by Art. 15 para. (7) of Law No. 202/2013 on consumer credit contracts (Law No. 202/2013), and does not justify the removal of the regime provided by the legislator as a sanction for non-compliance.

7. In the same vein, it is highlighted that the participant did not present evidence
   in support of its allegation. Accordingly, in the absence of proof to this effect, the entity's declarations are purely declaratory and cannot be retained.

8. In another order of ideas, the erroneous nature of the participant's perception
   of the way in which the legality of an unfavorable administrative act is checked is attested. Moreover, by filing a potential lawsuit by "FINANCECASA" SRL, which has as its object the collection of debt from the debtor, the court is not vested with the verification of the legality of an individual administrative act, pertinent to the civil case examined.

9. Furthermore, it is reasonable to presume that, in the hypothesis that the entity had
   filed such a civil action for debt collection under a credit contract already examined by the CNPF and regarding which an administrative act favorable to the debtor and unfavorable to the entity was adopted, the respective administrative act would not have been presented to the court by the entity.

10. In this context, the CNPF finds that the unexecuted decisions were not contested
    by "FINANCECASA" SRL in the administrative litigation procedure, which denotes the entity's recognition of the legality of the individual administrative acts adopted and of their enforceability. Subsidiarily, by not contesting them, those decisions remained irrevocable and acquired the authority of res judicata.

11. Regarding the non-compliance with provisions concerning competence (point 2 of
    the Preliminary Request), it should be noted that, according to Art. 26 para. (1) of Law No. 202/2013, "(1) The supervisory authority regarding the compliance with legislation in the field of consumer credit contracts is the National Commission of the Financial Market". Correspondingly, under the cited norm, the CNPF is authorized to verify compliance with legal requirements within a credit contract, concluded with a consumer, regardless of the current legal status of the creditor.

12. On the subject, it should be specified that Law No. 202/2013 operates with the term
    "creditor", establishing reference norms at the moment of concluding the contract and in the process of its execution, without the modification of the professional's status over time being relevant.

13. Consequently, it should be noted that, at the date of concluding the contracts covered by the CNPF decisions, "FINANCECASA" SRL was engaged in lending activity, and its deletion from the Register of authorized non-banking credit organizations does not represent the liquidation of the legal person, nor does it absolve it of liability for non-compliance with Law No. 202/2013 at the time of concluding the contracts.

14. Accordingly, the participant's allegations regarding the alleged lack of competence of the CNPF cannot be retained to demonstrate the illegality of Decision No. 3/2/2026.

15. Thus, in the situation where the participant failed to justify the merit
    of the request for annulment of Decision No. 3/2/2026, the Preliminary Request should be rejected, as no violations of substantive or procedural norms have been identified.

With regard to the preliminary procedure, it should be noted that, by CNPF letter No. 06-5/457 dated 16.02.2026, the participant was informed of the right to be heard, in writing, under Art. 94 para. (2) of the Administrative Code, being granted a term, until 20.02.2026, for sending, to the electronic mail address [...], a response, as a hearing, which would contain additional arguments to those relating to the Preliminary Request, in case they can be formulated, and which, so far, has not been submitted.

From the considerations exposed above, under Art. 18 para. (3), Art. 20 para. (1), para.
(6) and para. (7), Art. 22 para. (3) and Art. 25 para. (2) of Law No. 192/1998 on the National Commission of the Financial Market, Art. 17, Art. 19, Art. 162 para. (1) and para. (3) letter a), Art. 165 para. (1), Art. 166, Art. 167 para. (3), Art. 169 para. (2) and para. (3) of the Administrative Code and the Regulation on the organization and functioning of the National Commission of the Financial Market (CNPF Decision No. 57/11/2022),

The National Commission of the Financial Market DECIDES:

1. The Preliminary Request, submitted by "FINANCECASA" SRL, regarding
   the annulment of Decision No. 3/2 of the National Commission of the Financial Market dated
   20.01.2026 concerning the application of a coercive fine to "FINANCECASA"
   SRL for non-execution of certain decisions of the National Commission of the Financial Market (registered at CNPF with No. 832 on 10.02.2026) is rejected.

2. This Decision may be contested with an administrative litigation action,
   submitted to the Chisinau Court, Rascani seat (MD-2068, Chisinau, Kiev 3 St.), within 30 days from the date of its communication.

3. This Decision enters into force on the date of adoption, is communicated to the recipient
   in accordance with the legislation and is published on the official website of the CNPF (www.cnpf.md).

Vladimir RUSNAC,
VICE-PRESIDENT