Decision No. 41/1 of 18 August 2026 regarding the preliminary request submitted by OCN FLEX FINANCIAL SRL to annul CNPF Decision No. 32/1 of 30 June 2026 concerning the application of a coercive fine

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

DECISION
18 August 2026 No. 41/1

Regarding the Preliminary Request submitted by OCN "FLEX FINANCIAL" SRL, concerning the annulment of Decision No. 32/1 of the National Financial Market Commission dated 30.06.2026 regarding the application of a coercive fine to OCN "FLEX FINANCIAL" SRL related to the execution of the prescription in point 2 subpoint 2) of Decision No. 5/2 of the National Financial Market Commission dated 27.01.2025 regarding the results of the thematic control conducted within OCN "FLEX FINANCIAL" SRL

On 31.07.2026, within the National Financial Market Commission (CNPF), the Preliminary Request submitted by OCN "FLEX FINANCIAL" SRL (creditor/participant in the administrative procedure/company) was registered (No. 6597), requesting the annulment of CNPF Decision No. 32/1 dated 30.06.2026 regarding the application of a coercive fine to OCN "FLEX FINANCIAL" SRL related to the execution of the prescription in point 2 subpoint 2) of Decision No. 5/2 of the National Financial Market Commission dated 27.01.2025 regarding the results of the thematic control conducted within OCN "FLEX FINANCIAL" SRL (hereinafter: Preliminary Request).

In this case, it should be noted that, in order to ensure a comprehensive, objective, and transparent investigation that offers the real possibility of analyzing the creditor's claim, the creditor is informed that the examination of the factual and legal circumstances relevant to the case, in preliminary order, is carried out by distinct enforcement officers within the CNPF.

On 27.01.2025, the National Financial Market Commission approved Decision No. 5/2 regarding the results of the thematic control conducted within OCN "FLEX FINANCIAL" SRL (Decision No. 5/2/2025), which stipulates, inter alia, that:
"2. It is prescribed to OCN "FLEX FINANCIAL" SRL:
1) the application of the requirements stipulated in Art. 10 para. (3) lit. i) and lit. o) of Law No. 202/2013 on consumer credit contracts;
2) the return, within 180 days, of all payments provided for in the credit contract (which include interest, commissions, fees, penalties, late interest, and any other type of payment), with the exception of the initial disbursed amount, according to the credit contract, in the case of credit contracts reflected in Annex No. 3 to the Control Act.
…
6. OCN "FLEX FINANCIAL" SRL shall inform the CNPF monthly about the measures taken to execute point 2 of this Decision, attaching confirming documents."

In this context, it should be noted that the deadline for executing point 2 subpoint 2) of Decision No. 5/2/2025 expired on 30.07.2025.

In this case, OCN "FLEX FINANCIAL" SRL did not submit information regarding the measures taken in the context of executing point 2 subpoint 2) of Decision No. 5/2/2025 for the execution of the respective obligation, according to the periodicity established in point 6 of the same administrative act.

On 06.02.2026, the CNPF initiated, ex officio, the administrative procedure regarding the verification of the execution of the prescriptions provided in point 2 subpoint 2) of Decision No. 5/2/2025, a fact communicated to the creditor at the email address office@flexcredit.md, by letter No. 04-5/358 dated 06.02.2026. By the same letter, the CNPF requested the creditor to present, within 10 working days, information regarding the measures taken to execute the obligations prescribed in point 2 subpoint 2) of the Decision.

As a result, on 20.02.2026, OCN "FLEX FINANCIAL" SRL submitted explanations (registered at the CNPF with No. 1097), in which it argues that:
"2. for the reasons set out in Notification No. 90/2025 of 25.07.2025, it elaborated an activity plan and information plan for the clients indicated in Annex No. 3 to the Control Act, namely:
a) the methods of informing clients were determined with the elaboration of SMS content, notifications; b) negotiations were held with service providers for the submission of SMS and/or notifications; c) the secondary office and responsible persons for managing the process of returning monetary funds were determined, along with the processing and transfer deadlines; d) draft acts necessary for carrying out financial operations, an internal nomenclature for accounting and monitoring payments were elaborated; e) an analysis of the methods for mobilizing financial resources was carried out, including the contracting of external financial commitments to cover the needs to be reimbursed. The creditor has taken measures to improve the internal process regarding the granting of credits, including more objectively analyzing the financial repayment capacity of potential clients, the size of the number of performing credits granted, the collection of delayed credits, etc."

From the above, it results that the measures taken by the creditor primarily concern planning and analytical actions, which do not indicate the execution of the obligations established in point 2 subpoint 2) of Decision No. 5/2/2025.

Under the conditions stated above, the non-execution by OCN "FLEX FINANCIAL" SRL of the prescriptions established in point 2 subpoint 2) of Decision No. 5/2/2025 was attested, a fact that required the CNPF to take measures prescribed by administrative legislation to enforce the administrative act.

Thus, in accordance with Art. 185 of the Administrative Code, on 03.03.2026, the CNPF adopted Decision No. 11/2 regarding the summons for execution by OCN "FLEX FINANCIAL" SRL of the prescription in point 2 subpoint 2) of Decision No. 5/2 of the National Financial Market Commission dated 27.01.2025 regarding the results of the thematic control conducted within OCN "FLEX FINANCIAL" SRL (Decision No. 11/2/2026), according to which the creditor was summoned to execute point 2 subpoint 2) of Decision No. 11/2/2026, within 90 days from the date of its communication.

At the same time, the creditor was warned that, in case of non-execution of the obligation provided in point 1 of Decision No. 11/2/2026, the CNPF will apply a coercive fine in the amount of 3,000 conventional units, equivalent to 150,000 MDL, which becomes due upon the expiration of the term indicated in point 1 of the aforementioned Decision.

In this context, related to the case, on 29.05.2026, OCN "FLEX FINANCIAL" SRL submitted the Notification (Notification No. 1), with the documents attached to it (registered at the CNPF with No. 4335), in which, in addition to the measures indicated in the letter dated 20.02.2026 (registered at the CNPF with No. 1097), it argues that:
"f) during the period of April-May 2026, it sent written notifications to all clients indicated in Annex No. 3, indicating the dates and method of returning monetary funds, in a total number of 2,050; g) during the summons period prescribed by the CNPF, the Company took additional measures of information and individualized support for the clients indicated in Annex No. 3, including by telephone contact by Call Center operators, as well as through secondary offices, with clients being directed regarding the presentation of bank details for the return of monetary funds; h) clients indicated in Annex No. 3, who submitted requests or questions to the Company's official email address, were contacted/directed to provide the necessary information regarding the return procedure; i) it compensated into active credits, based on written requests of some clients indicated in Annex No. 3, the amounts prescribed for return; j) it registered the refusal requests of some clients indicated in Annex No. 3 to have monetary funds prescribed for return to them. k) The Company received and processed the original requests and requests submitted by clients indicated in Annex No. 3, located outside the Republic of Moldova, which confirms that the mechanism for information and return of monetary funds was functional and accessible even for clients who are not physically on the territory of the country."

In this sense, based on the measures indicated above, OCN "FLEX FINANCIAL" SRL communicated that:
"a) it sent by mail to clients indicated in Annex No. 3 notifications with acknowledgment of receipt in a total number of 2,050, of which received: 1,088, not received: 962, proof is attached; b) it carried out the transfer and return of monetary funds to clients indicated in Annex No. 3 in the amount of 1,253,385.80 lei, of which the Company compensated into active credits the amounts prescribed for return to clients in the amount of 638,906.65 lei, proof is attached; c) monetary funds were returned to 503 clients indicated in Annex No. 3, proof is attached; d) 78 requests from clients indicated in Annex No. 3 are in the transfer procedure, the amount to be returned being 262,524.71 lei; e) in 5 cases, written refusal was issued from returning the prescribed monetary funds to clients indicated in Annex No. 3 (in total the amount of 9,029.84 lei); f) the total number of clients who returned with requests to the Company and which were fully satisfied is 590 clients from Annex No. 3, the total amount to be returned being 1,524,940.35 lei; g) on 25.05.2026 and 29.05.2026, the Company sent SMS to clients indicated in Annex No. 3, from which no response was received to the notifications with acknowledgment of receipt sent by mail by the Creditor, regarding the extension of the deadline for presenting bank details for the transfer, in a number of 1,758 SMS (25.05.2026 – 879 SMS, 29.05.2026 – 879 SMS); h) in Annex No. 3, 4 cases/clients were identified, for whom the amounts to be returned were not indicated by the CNPF according to the total cost established (non-bank credit contract number: 103987, 103986, 105904, 106388, the prescribed value being "0"); i) The Company is willing and continues to receive requests from clients indicated in Annex No. 3 and to return financial funds to those who subsequently return to the Creditor according to the prescription indicated in point 2 subpoint 2) of Decision No. 5/2 of 27.01.2025 with the taking of measures to inform them."

Also, during the hearing procedure, which took place on 19.06.2026, at 10:00, within the CNPF premises, representatives of OCN "FLEX FINANCIAL" SRL reiterated the position expressed previously by Notification No. 1 and communicated that they would submit to the CNPF an updated notification regarding the stage of execution of the ordered measures on 19.06.2026, facts recorded in the Hearing Protocol of the participant in the administrative procedure.

Therefore, on the same date, the creditor submitted the notification with updated data (Notification No. 2), which states that, "[...] Thus, we note that currently 645 consumers have already interacted with O.C.N. "FLEX FINANCIAL" S.R.L. and have benefited from the execution of the ordered measures, with returns and compensations in a total value of 1,617,174.41 lei. [...]".

Following the investigations carried out, in the context of the respective administrative procedure, the analysis of the materials/evidence presented by the creditor, from the perspective of the normative framework incident to contractual relations, the CNPF adopted Decision No. 32/1 dated 30.07.2026 regarding the application of a coercive fine to OCN "FLEX FINANCIAL" SRL related to the execution of the prescription in point 2 subpoint 2) of Decision No. 5/2 of the National Financial Market Commission dated 27.01.2025 regarding the results of the thematic control conducted within OCN "FLEX FINANCIAL" SRL (Decision No. 32/1/2026/Contested Decision).

Not agreeing with the CNPF's findings, the creditor submitted a Preliminary Request, requesting the annulment of the Contested Decision.

In law, it should be noted that, in accordance with Art. 20 of the Administrative Code, "If an administrative activity infringes a legitimate right or a freedom established by law, this right may be claimed through an administrative litigation action, [...]", and according to Art. 17, "An infringed right is any right or freedom established by law to which an infringement is caused by administrative activity."

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

Under the conditions of Art. 166 of the Administrative Code, "The Preliminary Request may be submitted only if the person claims the rights infringed by the issuance or rejection of the issuance of an individual administrative act."

In the sense of Art. 169 para. (3) of the Administrative Code, the provisions regarding the individual administrative act apply, correspondingly, in the order of examining the preliminary request.

From the content of the cited norms, it is clearly revealed that the preliminary procedure is a pre-litigation path, made available to the public authority, to verify the legality of its own individual administrative act.

By analyzing the arguments exposed in the Preliminary Request, from the perspective of the legal provisions applicable to the case, it will be assessed whether they are of a nature to overturn the authority's findings.

From the analysis of the information presented by OCN "FLEX FINANCIAL" SRL, it results that the measures ordered by Decision No. 5/2/2025 were executed only partially, the restitution obligation being fulfilled only for a part of the contracts indicated in Annex No. 3, while for the majority of contracts it remains unexecuted. This finding is firm and was not contested by the creditor, as it results directly from the information reported by OCN "FLEX FINANCIAL" SRL.

With reference to this aspect, contrary to the creditor's statements, the object of the obligation whose execution was followed in the administrative procedure must be delimited. According to point 2 subpoint 2) of CNPF Decision No. 5/2/2025, OCN "FLEX FINANCIAL" SRL was prescribed the obligation to "return, within 180 days, all payments provided for in the credit contract (which include interest, commissions, fees, penalties, late interest, and any other type of payment), with the exception of the initial disbursed amount", for the credit contracts reflected in Annex No. 3 to the Control Act. Therefore, the content of the obligation, established by the administrative act, does not consist merely in undertaking preparatory, informational, or internal organizational measures, but in the effective realization of the return of sums to the consumers concerned, under the conditions and within the term established by the public authority.

In this context, the argument of OCN "FLEX FINANCIAL" SRL according to which the prescribed obligation would have been executed in full "within the limits of what depended on the Company's conduct" cannot be retained. The creditor argues that the obligation would have had two components, namely its obligation to identify, notify, and make available to consumers the monetary funds, on the one hand, and the subsequent conduct of the consumers, on the other hand, the latter not being within its sphere of control.

Such an interpretation, however, restricts the content of the obligation provided by law and taken up by the administrative act, in the context of the CNPF's finding of non-compliance with the special law provisions. Correlatively, such a interpretation substitutes the restitution obligation with a distinct diligence obligation, which does not result from the legal norm. Or, the debtor is required to execute the obligation in the form prescribed by law and subsequently found in the enforceable administrative act, without unilaterally redefining its content based on the measures it deems it can control.

Therefore, the support that, upon the expiration of the conformity term, the prescribed obligation had been executed in full cannot be retained.

In this case, according to the information and documents presented by OCN "FLEX FINANCIAL" SRL, until the expiration of the conformity term, monetary funds in a total value of 1,617,174.41 MDL were returned, which represents approximately 42% of the total value of the sums prescribed for return, according to Annex No. 3 to the Control Act (in the amount of 3,842,408.46 MDL). At the same time, the return measures concerned only 645 consumers, representing approximately 31.46% of the total number of debtors included in Annex No. 3 to the Control Act.

Under these conditions, the statement that the creditor had fully executed the obligation within its sphere of control is not supported by the actual result of the execution and, moreover, does not correspond to the content of the obligation established by the administrative act.

Thus, it cannot be supported that the CNPF applied the fine exclusively by mechanical reference to the percentages of 42% and 31.46%, without examining the company's conduct. On the contrary, from the reasoning of Decision No. 32/1/2026, it results that the authority analyzed the concrete measures taken by OCN "FLEX FINANCIAL" SRL, including the notification of consumers, the returns and compensations carried out, as well as the company's conduct after the issuance of Decision No. 11/2/2026. Therefore, the proportion of sums returned and consumers concerned did not constitute the sole criterion for appreciation, but an objectively relevant element for establishing the degree to which the prescribed obligation had been effectively executed, a fact that falls within the discretionary right of the CNPF. Consequently, the cumulation of these circumstances determined the reduction of the value of the fine applied in relation to that established at the time of the summons by the CNPF.

According to the Contested Decision, it was established that, upon the expiration of the execution term granted by the summons, the obligation established by the administrative act had not been executed in full. At the same time, the circumstances invoked by the creditor regarding the lack of response from some consumers, the explicit refusal of others, or the need to present bank details were taken into account in the individualization of the coercive measure.

At the same time, from the sequence of facts, it results that OCN "FLEX FINANCIAL" SRL did not execute the obligation to return the sums within the 180-day term established by Decision No. 5/2/2025. The return of sums to consumers was initiated only after the adoption of Decision No. 11/2/2026, which confirms that the execution of the obligation occurred exclusively in the context of the coercive measures taken by the CNPF, and not as a result of the voluntary execution of the administrative act. Nevertheless, the CNPF took into account the good faith conduct manifested by the professional during the post-summons period.

In the same order of ideas, the support according to which the coercive fine could no longer be applied, because, by the measures taken within the 90-day term, the creditor had already reached the preventive and coercive purpose of the fine, is unfounded. Decision No. 11/2/2026 constituted precisely the preliminary summons stage, by which the company was granted an additional term for the execution of the obligation and was expressly informed of the consequence of non-execution, namely the application of a coercive fine in the amount of 3,000 conventional units, equivalent to 150,000 MDL. Therefore, the mere undertaking of measures during the summons period does not equate to the execution of the obligation.

Furthermore, the fact that the creditor initiated the return process only after the summons indicates that the voluntary compliance was absent. The CNPF correctly assessed that the partial execution, while demonstrating some effort, did not meet the legal requirement of full restitution within the statutory deadline. The reduction of the fine reflects the authority's discretion to consider the mitigating factor of the company's subsequent actions, but does not negate the initial breach. The decision upholds the principle that administrative obligations must be fulfilled completely and within the specified timeframe, and that internal planning or partial performance does not exempt the entity from the consequences of non-compliance. The CNPF maintains that the coercive fine serves both a punitive and a preventive function, ensuring that financial institutions adhere strictly to regulatory orders designed to protect consumer rights. The rejection of the preliminary request confirms the legality and proportionality of the administrative act in question.

7 obligation and does not automatically remove the possibility of applying the coercive measure in the event that, upon expiration of the term, the obligation remains unexecuted.
On the contrary, the fact that the creditor benefited from an additional term of 90 days and, until its expiration, achieved only partial execution, demonstrates the necessity of intervening the coercive mechanism. The coercive fine does not have the character of a sanction for the mere prior conduct of the company, but aims to ensure the effective execution of an existing and enforceable obligation. Under these conditions, the fact that the creditor began to execute the obligation after the CNPF summons, represents a relevant circumstance for the individualization of the amount of the fine, but does not constitute, in itself, a reason for excluding the application of the fine when the obligation was not fully executed within the granted term. Under these conditions, although the CNPF noted that the participant in the administrative procedure took certain measures towards the execution of the prescription, these had as the result only a partial execution of the obligation established by Decision No. 5/2/2025, the obligation remaining unexecuted in full. In this regard, it is noted that the notification to consumers does not fully achieve the purpose of the prescribed measure. The professional character of the creditor presupposes a higher standard of diligence in the organization and conduct of communications with consumers. From this perspective, it is reasonable for the professional to evaluate, ex officio, which are the communication methods, likely to ensure effective information, taking into account the totality of contact channels, which he himself has requested, collected and used within the contractual relationship. Since the obligation to notify constitutes an instrument for remedying the effects of a violation of legislation, the execution of this obligation cannot be limited to the formal fulfillment of a procedural requirement, but must reflect a conduct effectively oriented towards informing the consumer with the effective compensation of the latter. Regarding the invocation of the principle of proportionality, the CNPF notes that this was applied effectively in the adoption of Decision No. 32/1/2026. According to Art. 29 of the Administrative Code, an administrative measure is proportional if it is suitable for achieving the pursued goal, is necessary and is reasonable, and the reasonable character presupposes that the interference produced is not disproportionate in relation to the pursued goal. In this case, the application of the coercive fine is apt to contribute to the realization of the legitimate goal pursued, namely the effective execution of an obligation, established by an enforceable administrative act, is necessary in the context where voluntary execution was not fully realized even after granting an additional term of 90 days and is reasonable in relation to the nature and extent of the obligation remaining unexecuted. Moreover, the analysis of proportionality cannot be carried out by isolating a single favorable
element for the debtor, namely the fact that certain measures were taken, without relating this to the extent of the obligation remaining unexecuted. Under the conditions of the contested Decision, the fine of 50,000 MDL, representing only one third of the amount of 150,000 MDL, communicated previously by Decision No. 11/2/2026, cannot be qualified as an excessive measure, all the more so since the reduction of the amount was based precisely on the partial execution and the conduct of the company. Under these conditions, the support, according to which the principle of proportionality required the non-application of the full fine, cannot be retained, as it confuses the assessment

8 the proportionality of the measure with the exclusion of any coercive measure, in the case of a partial execution.
Also, in the application of the principle of proportionality and taking into account the circumstances intervening after the adoption of Decision No. 11/2/2026, in particular the partial execution of the obligation by OCN "FLEX FINANCIAL" SRL, the CNPF considered justified the reduction of the amount of the coercive fine, up to the amount of 1,000 conventional units, equivalent to 50,000 MDL, a fact considered reasonable, in accordance with Art. 29 para. (3) of the Administrative Code. Regarding the invocation of good faith, the CNPF notes that the measures taken by OCN "FLEX FINANCIAL" SRL were analyzed and positively appreciated within the administrative procedure. Thus, Decision No. 32/1/2026 expressly records that, after the adoption of Decision No. 11/2/2026, the creditor manifested a conduct of good faith by taking effective measures towards the execution of the obligation, including the notification of the consumers concerned and the execution of refunds. It was precisely this conduct that was utilized by the CNPF in the individualization of the fine and determined the substantial reduction of the amount, from 150,000 MDL, an amount regarding which OCN "FLEX FINANCIAL" SRL was warned by Decision No. 11/2/2026, to 50,000 MDL. Therefore, the good faith invoked in the preliminary request was not ignored by the authority, but, on the contrary, constituted one of the determining elements for establishing the final amount of the fine. In this sense, it cannot be supported that, once the good faith of the debtor of execution is established, the public authority would be deprived of the possibility of applying the coercive fine. Good faith is relevant for the assessment of the conduct of the debtor, but does not substitute the execution of the obligation and does not remove the effects of non-execution within the established term. An interpretation to the contrary would lead to the situation, where any debtor could avoid the coercive measure, by simple demonstration of the fact that he took certain steps, even if the obligation, established by the administrative act, remains unexecuted. Or, such an interpretation would deprive of efficiency the execution mechanism provided by the Administrative Code. Regarding the argument, according to which the coercive fine should be used exclusively in situations of "passivity or refusal to comply", this cannot be accepted in the form in which it is formulated by the creditor. The norms regarding the execution by coercive measures do not condition the application of the fine on the existence of a conduct of absolute passivity or an explicit refusal of the debtor. The legal relevance lies in the fact that the obligation incumbent on the debtor was not realized voluntarily and fully within the established term. In this case, the existence of actions taken by OCN "FLEX FINANCIAL" SRL was not denied by the CNPF; these were evaluated and taken into consideration. However, they did not have as the result the full
execution of the prescribed obligation, so it cannot be supported that the basis of the coercive measure disappeared. Subsequently, the argument regarding the fact that the refund process would be continuous and that this continued even after the expiration of the term of summons cannot be retained. Even if the creditor continues to receive requests and to effect refunds and after the expiration of the term established by the CNPF, this fact does not modify the execution term established by Decision 5/2/2025. In the same vein, the statement of the company, that there was no action remaining to be taken upon which it had control, at the expiration of the term,

9 represents a unilateral assessment of the debtor, which is not sufficient to demonstrate the execution of the obligation. On the contrary, from the data presented by OCN "FLEX FINANCIAL" SRL, it results the existence of a considerable difference between the total value of the sums prescribed for refund and the value actually refunded, as well as between the total number of consumers concerned and the number of those who have actually benefited from refund or compensation. As long as the administrative obligation consisted in the refund of the sums related to the contracts indicated in Annex No. 3 to the Control Act, the existence of this difference constitutes an objective fact, which confirms the partial execution of the obligation, at the relevant moment for the application of the fine. Regarding the argument concerning the contestation in court of CNPF Decision No. 5/2/2025, it follows to be retained that the formulation of an action in administrative litigation against the administrative act does not lead, by itself, to the deprivation of the act of its enforceable character. Decision No. 5/2/2025 constitutes the administrative act, which is the basis of the obligation whose execution was pursued, and within the procedure, which led to the issuance of Decision No. 32/1/2026, it was not established the existence of a measure of suspension of the execution of this obligation. Of else, even OCN "FLEX FINANCIAL" SRL acknowledges that it took measures of execution of the prescription, including refunds and compensations, which confirms the fact that, in its own conduct, it treated the obligation as susceptible of execution. Therefore, the simple existence of a pending litigation regarding the legality of the primary administrative act cannot constitute a legal impediment for the application of execution mechanisms as long as the respective act produces legal effects and there is no legal measure by which the execution of it has been suspended. The financial risk invoked by the creditor, consisting in the possibility that, subsequently, the primary administrative act would be annulled and the refunded sums would have to be recovered, represents a possible and future hypothesis, which cannot prevail over the current obligation of execution of an administrative act which, at the moment of the issuance of Decision No. 32/1/2026, produced legal effects. Also, the financial risk invoked cannot be qualified as an element, which would make the coercive fine disproportionate. The fine was applied not for the fact that OCN "FLEX FINANCIAL" SRL executed Decision No. 5/2/2025 and nor for the fact that it refunded certain sums, but because the obligation established by this was not fully executed within the granted term. Or, the possibility of subsequent annulment of the primary administrative act is distinct from the analysis of the legality and proportionality of the coercive measure applied for non-execution of an obligation which, at that moment, was
enforceable. Based on the above, the circumstances invoked in the preliminary request, viewed individually or as a whole, are not of a nature to demonstrate the illegality of CNPF Decision No. 32/1 of 30.06.2026 and do not justify its annulment. Under these conditions, the Preliminary Request should be rejected as unfounded, and CNPF Decision No. 32/1 of 30.06.2026 should be maintained in force. Regarding the preliminary procedure, it should be noted that, in accordance with the provisions of Art. 94 of the Administrative Code, by letter No. 06-5/3386 of the CNPF dated 07.08.2026, sent to the email address office@flexcredit.md, OCN "FLEX FINANCIAL" SRL was informed about the exercise of the right to be heard regarding the facts and circumstances relevant to the decision that is to be adopted in the context of the Preliminary Request.

10
In this sense, under the conditions of ensuring the principle of efficiency, but also of comprehensibility and transparency of the administrative procedure, on the basis of Art. 94 para. (2) of the Administrative Code, the creditor was informed that the hearing is to be made in writing, by depositing, to the address of the CNPF, the opinion as a hearing, until the date of 13.08.2026 inclusive. Consequently, OCN "FLEX FINANCIAL" SRL, by the letter registered at CNPF with No. 7031 on the date of 12.08.2026, communicated that "Within the administrative procedure O.C.N. ,,FLEX FINANCIAL" S.R.L. collaborated fully with the issuing authority and presented at the request of the authority all evidence on the facts in the volume and terms requested. In this context, we consider that the explanations and evidence presented by O.C.N. ,,FLEX FINANCIAL" S.R.L. is one sufficient to allow the issuing authority to assess the arguments of the Society as justified and sufficient to justify the revision of CNPF Decision No. 32/1 of 30.06.2026 in a favorable sense, without the need for carrying out additional hearings.". From the considerations recorded above, on the basis of Art. 18 para. (3), 20 para. (1) para. (6) and para. (7) and Art. 22 para. (3) of Law No. 192/1998 regarding the National Commission of the Financial Market, Art. 17, Art. 19, Art. 162 para. (1) and para. (3) lit. a), Art. 164 para. (1) and para. (2) lit. a), Art. 166, Art. 167 para. (1) and para. (3) and Art. 169 para. (2) and para. (3) of the Administrative Code, pct. 16 and pct. 19 of the Regulation regarding 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 OCN "FLEX FINANCIAL" SRL,
   regarding the annulment of the Decision of the National Commission of the Financial Market No. 32/1 of the date of 30.06.2026 regarding the application of the coercive fine to OCN "FLEX FINANCIAL" SRL related to the execution of the prescription from pct. 2 sbp. 2) of the Decision of the National Commission of the Financial Market No. 5/2 of the date of 27.01.2025 regarding the results of the thematic control, carried out within OCN "FLEX FINANCIAL" SRL (registered at CNPF with No. 6597 on the date of 31.07.2026).
2. This Decision may be contested with an action in administrative litigation
   deposited at the Chișinău Court, Râșcani seat (MD-2068, mun. Chișinău, str.
   Kiev 3), within a term of 30 days from the date of its communication.
3. This Decision enters into force on the date of adoption, is communicated to the recipient
   according to legislation and is published on the official website of CNPF (www.cnpf.md).
   Dumitru BUDIANSCHI,
   PRESIDENT