Decision No. 44/1 of 1 September 2026 regarding the preliminary request submitted by OCN "MOGO LOANS" SRL concerning the annulment of CNPF Decision No. 34/1 of 13 July 2026

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
1 September 2026 No. 44/1
Regarding the Preliminary Request submitted by OCN "MOGO LOANS" SRL concerning the annulment of Decision No. 34/1 of the National Commission of the Financial Market dated 13.07.2026 regarding the application of the coercive fine to OCN "MOGO LOANS" SRL, related to the execution of the prescription in point 3 of Decision No. 28/3 of the National Commission of the Financial Market dated 09.06.2025 regarding the results of the thematic control carried out within OCN "MOGO LOANS" SRL

On 22.07.2026, within the National Commission of the Financial Market (CNPF/supervisory authority), the Preliminary Request, registered under no. 6207, submitted by OCN "MOGO LOANS" SRL (professional/creditor/participant/entity), was registered, concerning the annulment of CNPF Decision No. 34/1 dated 13.07.2026, by which the following is requested:

"1. admission of this preliminary request;
2. full annulment of points 1–4 of CNPF Decision No. 34/1 dated 13.07.2026;
3. subsidiarily to request 2, annulment of points 2 and 3 regarding the application and payment of the coercive fine of 250,000 MDL;
4. subsidiarily to request 3, substantial reduction of the fine, following an updated assessment of execution, residual damage, cooperation, and less onerous alternatives;
5. re-examination of point 1 regarding the refusal of conciliation, with an evaluation of a revised, measurable version accompanied by consumer protection guarantees;
6. annulment or modification of point 4, such that reporting obligations are clear, determined by category, and correlated with a contract-by-contract methodology communicated to MOGO;
7. finding that any payment of the fine made to avoid execution is without admission of liability and subject to the right of restitution;
8. granting access and transmission of an electronic copy of the complete administrative file, including materials examined on 13.07.2026, the minutes of the Board of Directors meeting, documents regarding the individualization of the fine, and analysis of the contract version of 03.07.2026;
9. linking the examination of this request with a separate request for suspension only to the extent that it does not delay the urgent resolution of the suspension;
10. issuance of a written, complete, and motivated decision and communication thereof to info@mogo.md and authorized representatives..".

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

In fact, on 13.07.2026, under Article 181 of the Administrative Code, the CNPF adopted Decision No. 34/1 regarding the application of the coercive fine to OCN "MOGO LOANS" SRL, related to the execution of the prescription in point 3 of Decision No. 28/3 of the National Commission of the Financial Market dated 09.06.2025 regarding the results of the thematic control carried out within OCN "MOGO LOANS" SRL (Decision No. 34/1/2026/Contested Decision), according to which the entity was imposed a coercive fine in the amount of 5,000 conventional units, equivalent to 250,000 MDL, as a result of the finding of non-execution of the obligations prescribed in point 3 of Decision No. 28/3 of the National Commission of the Financial Market dated 09.06.2025 regarding the results of the thematic control carried out within OCN "MOGO LOANS" SRL (Decision No. 28/3/2025).

In this context, prior to the application of the coercive fine, in accordance with Article 185 of the Administrative Code, the CNPF, by Decision No. 10/1 dated 24.02.2026 regarding the summons for execution by OCN "MOGO LOANS" SRL of the prescriptions from Decision No. 28/3 of the National Commission of the Financial Market dated 09.06.2025 regarding the results of the thematic control carried out within OCN "MOGO LOANS" SRL (Decision No. 10/1/2026), summoned the entity to execute the established obligations, granting it a term of 90 days and warning it about the application of the coercive fine in case of non-execution.

Not agreeing with Decision No. 34/1/2026, the participant submitted a Preliminary Request, by which it requests the annulment of the contested Decision.

In this case, it should be retained that, at the time of the application of the coercive fine, Decision No. 28/3/2025 had an enforceable character, because, by the Ruling of the Chisinau Court, Rîșcani section, dated 29.09.2025, the request submitted by OCN "MOGO LOANS" SRL regarding the suspension of execution of Decision No. 28/3/2025 was rejected as unfounded. At the same time, the decision of the court of first instance was upheld by the appellate court, which rejected the appeal declared by OCN "MOGO LOANS" SRL against the aforementioned Ruling.

Furthermore, it should be retained that the execution of CNPF Decision No. 10/1/2026, by which OCN "MOGO LOANS" SRL was summoned to execute the prescriptions established in point 3 of Decision No. 28/3/2025, was not suspended, the request in this regard being rejected by the court of first instance by the Ruling of the Chisinau Court, Rîșcani section, dated 30.07.2026.

Therefore, at the time of the application of the coercive fine, the obligations established by Decision No. 28/3/2025 were enforceable, and the summons measure issued by Decision No. 10/1/2026 produced its legal effects, not being suspended by the court.

Under these conditions, by analyzing the arguments exposed in the Preliminary Request, in the 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, Article 19 of the Administrative Code provides that "The Preliminary Request is the institution that offers a pre-litigation way of resolving administrative disputes," and Article 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 towards: a) annulment in whole or in part of an individual administrative act that is illegal or null; [...]".

2. Under the conditions of Article 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 Article 167 para. (1) and para. (3) of the same law, "(1) If it considers the preliminary request to be admissible and well-founded, the issuing public authority annuls in whole or in part the contested individual administrative act or issues the requested individual administrative act. [...] (3) The issuing public authority resolves the preliminary request within 15 calendar days. The provisions of Article 60 para.(2) – (5) apply accordingly.".

3. On the subject, it should be highlighted that the participant invokes, as grounds for annulment of Decision No. 34/1/2026, "(i) incomplete investigation of the state of facts and lack of contractual reconciliation; (ii) incomplete and contradictory assessment of evidence regarding the execution of prescriptions; (iii) lack of certainty of the obligation subject to coercive execution; (iv) lack of an updated and individualized assessment of the proportionality of the coercive fine; (v) insufficient motivation of the unfavorable administrative act; (vi) violation of the right to be heard on the decisive grounds taken into account in adopting the contested Decision; (vii) lack of sufficient individualization of the refusal to conclude the administrative conciliation contract; as well as (viii) alleged discrepancy between the obligation established by the summons and the obligation considered unexecuted at the time of application of the coercive fine.".

4. In this case, examining the circumstances of the case, it is noted that the professional's allegations cannot be retained as relevant and well-founded, as they are not of a nature to overturn the findings of the supervisory authority, which is why the Preliminary Request should be rejected as unfounded, for the following reasons:

4.1 Regarding the alleged incomplete investigation of the state of facts and lack of contractual reconciliation invoked by the participant in point IV sbp. 1 of the Preliminary Request, it should be specified that, in accordance with Article 22 para. (1) of the Administrative Code, the public authority investigates the state of facts ex officio, it establishes, depending on the circumstances of the case, the type and volume of necessary investigations, and is not bound by the participant's statements or requests regarding the administration of certain evidence. Therefore, the obligation of ex officio investigation cannot be interpreted in the sense that the authority is obliged to take upon itself the performance of all material and economic-financial operations that belong to the debtor of execution, in order to realize the obligation established by the individual administrative act.

In this case, the investigation of the state of facts was carried out effectively in the light of Decision No. 28/3/2025, Decision No. 38/1/2025, the monthly reports submitted by OCN "MOGO LOANS" SRL, including Report No. 7, the attachments thereto, the notifications sent to consumers, information regarding refunds, cancellations, and annulments of obligations, information regarding debt assignments, explanations presented by the participant, accompanied by evidence, as well as drafts of the administrative conciliation contract.

Under these conditions, the mere reporting of the 137 contracts as "assigned to PFB" cannot be equated, in the absence of justificatory documents, with the demonstration of the execution of the obligation established by the administrative act.

Therefore, under Article 87 of the Administrative Code, the CNPF examined the case based on the materials and evidence administered during the administrative procedure, existing in the administrative file and in the possession of the authority. Although the participant was offered the possibility to present all information and documents that they considered relevant for demonstrating the execution of the obligation, they did not present the necessary documents for verifying the measures reported regarding the 137 contracts assigned to "PFB".

In this sense, the mere existence of measures taken by the participant is not legally equivalent to the full execution of the prescribed obligation. Thus, actions regarding the refund of sums, cancellation of obligations, limitation of claims, or transmission of notifications represent measures susceptible to contributing to compliance. However, these had to be taken by the participant within the term and volume provided by the administrative act. Each of these measures must be carried out in relation to all contracts mentioned in annexes no. 1 and no. 2 to Decision No. 28/3/2025.

Moreover, the obligation established in point 3 of Decision No. 28/3/2025 did not consist merely in undertaking preparatory actions, but in the effective realization of the prescription provided by the administrative act, namely the refund of payments exceeding the initial disbursed sum or, where applicable, informing the debtor that the creditor will request only the initially disbursed sum.

Therefore, the thesis according to which any financial or procedural measure taken by the participant should be considered, automatically, as execution of the prescription cannot be retained.

Regarding the request for the CNPF to carry out a contract-by-contract reconciliation, this essentially represents a request to transfer to the authority the burden of identifying, calculating, and documenting the execution of the obligation by the debtor. Such an interpretation contradicts the nature of the execution obligation, because OCN "MOGO LOANS" SRL, as the debtor of the obligation established by the administrative act, is the one that holds the complete contractual and financial records and is able to demonstrate, through specific documents, that for each contract concerned, it carried out the prescribed measure.

Furthermore, the financial effects reported by the participant cannot be separated from the concrete conditions of execution of the prescription. The total value of payments made, obligations cancelled, or claims limited does not demonstrate, by itself, that for each contract concerned, the consumer effectively benefited from the prescribed remedy.

4.2 With reference to the alleged incomplete and contradictory assessment of evidence regarding the execution of obligations, invoked in point IV sbp. 3 of the Preliminary Request, it should be noted that this ground of illegality cannot be retained, as, according to Decision No. 34/1/2026, it was established that the participant undertook some successive actions, including notifying debtors, recalculating contractual obligations, making refunds, cancelling payment obligations, and limiting assigned claims, but the measures taken did not lead to the realization of the prescription established in point 3 of Decision No. 28/3/2025.

4.3 Regarding the alleged lack of certainty of the obligation subject to execution invoked in point IV. sbp. 3 of the Preliminary Request

In this case, the supervisory authority, according to Article 119 of the Administrative Code, through Decision No. 28/3/2025, clearly and predictably indicated the essential elements of the obligation imposed on the participant, namely these include the recipients of the obligation, the contracts concerned by reference to the annexes indicated in the administrative act, the category of payments that were to be refunded, the amount that did not fall under the scope of refund, namely the initial disbursed sum, as well as the term in which the obligation was to be executed. Therefore, the obligation established by the administrative act is determined in terms of the object and is determinable in terms of the concrete operations necessary for each contractual relationship.

The interpretation according to which the supervisory authority should establish in the summons act or in the act regarding the coercive fine, for each contract separately, the exact value of all payments to be refunded, cannot be accepted, under the conditions that such data are in the creditor's records and must be determined during the execution of the obligation towards each of the consumers concerned.

Under these conditions, the obligation established by the administrative act contained sufficient elements to allow the participant to determine, without ambiguity, both the contracts and payments concerned, as well as the extent and term of execution, so that it cannot be reasonably supported that it lacked clarity, predictability, or determinability. Therefore, the invocation of an alleged lack of certainty of the obligation, under the conditions that the administrative act established, with sufficient clarity, all the necessary elements for execution, denotes the purely formal nature of this argument and reveals a conduct oriented towards delaying the execution of the obligation, but not the existence of a real impediment to its execution.

Moreover, through Decision No. 10/1/2026, the supervisory authority retained the fact of the modification of Decision No. 28/3/2025 by Decision No. 38/1/2025, at the same time noting that the prescription issued by the authority replicates the text of the norm provided in Article 15 para. (9) of Law No. 202/2013 (in force at the time of adoption of Decision No. 28/3/2025). Accordingly, the summons concerned by Decision No. 10/1/2026 was adopted in the context of opposing the actions undertaken and reported by the participant in relation to the authority's prescriptions, OCN "MOGO LOANS" SRL itself being able to determine the volume of contracts concerned in the summons provided by Decision No. 10/1/2026.

4.4 Regarding the alleged lack of an updated and individualized assessment of the proportionality of the coercive fine, invoked in point IV. sbp. 4 of the Preliminary Request

Preliminarily, it is necessary to delimit the legal nature of the coercive fine from that of a punitive sanction.

On the subject, the coercive fine represents a legal instrument, intended to determine the debtor of execution to realize the action established by the administrative act and does not constitute, by its nature, a sanction applied for the commission of a new violation. Article 181 of the Administrative Code expressly regulates the possibility of determining the debtor to fulfill the action by coercive fine, and para. (4) establishes its limits and the relevant criterion for establishing the amount.

During the administrative procedure, the participant was ensured the right to present their position, to formulate arguments, and to present relevant evidence for the resolution of the case, including during the hearing on 23.06.2026. The materials presented by OCN "MOGO LOANS" SRL were examined in their entirety, by reference to the content of the obligation established in point 3 of Decision No. 28/3/2025 and to the measures taken by the participant in order to execute it.

In this context, the number of only 109 contracts for which the regularization measures were reported as completed, compared to the period elapsed since the participant was made aware of Decision No. 28/3/2025, did not lead the authority to consider it appropriate to reduce the administrative sanction.

This all the more so because, in numerous cases, the actions undertaken by the participant were determined as a result of initial complaints addressed to the CNPF by debtors. Thus, for the 109 contracts regarding which the participant reported the completion of regularization measures, justificatory documents were presented, including orders for refunding sums to debtors. These documents were examined and valued in the assessment of the measures taken by the participant and the degree of execution of the obligation.

Separately, regarding the 137 contracts reported as being assigned to "PFB", with the limitation of tracking to the amount of the sum actually disbursed, the materials presented do not contain sufficient evidence for verifying the execution of the obligation regarding these contracts. In particular, the participant did not present, neither during the administrative procedure nor during the preliminary procedure, the assignment contracts related to them, as well as the documents attesting to the notification of debtors regarding the assignment and, respectively, regarding the reduction of payment obligations to the amount of the initially disbursed sum.

In accordance with Article 29 para. (1) – (3) of the Administrative Code, any measure taken by the public authority that affects rights or freedoms provided by law must correspond to the principle of proportionality. The measure is proportionate if it is suitable for achieving the pursued goal, necessary for achieving the goal, and reasonable.

In another order of ideas, the application of the coercive fine in the amount of 5,000 conventional units corresponds to the mentioned criteria, as follows:
1) suitable for achieving the pursued goal – because it was considered apt to determine OCN "MOGO LOANS" SRL to execute the obligation established in point 3 of CNPF Decision No. 28//2025.

Moreover, according to Article 181 para. (1) of the Administrative Code, in the case where an action can be performed only by the debtor of execution and is not realized voluntarily, they may be determined to realize the action by coercive fine.

In this case, the obligation established in point 3 of Decision No. 28/3/2025 implies the realization of actions that can be carried out directly by OCN "MOGO LOANS" SRL, namely the refund of payments to the consumers concerned, limiting their obligations to the initially disbursed sum or, where applicable, notifying consumers regarding the collection of only the disbursed sum.

Therefore, the coercive fine constitutes a legal instrument apt to influence the debtor's conduct and to determine them to finalize the execution of the obligation.

At the same time, the fact that OCN "MOGO LOANS" SRL undertook certain execution measures does not remove the suitability of the coercive measure, as long as, at

Upon expiration of the deadline granted by Decision No. 10/1/2026, the obligation had not been fully executed.

In this regard, the purpose of the coercive fine is not to sanction measures already taken by the debtor, but to compel the debtor to execute the prescribed obligation, aspects taken into consideration also in the adoption of Decision No. 10/1/2026.

2) Necessary to achieve the purpose – taking into account that the professional was granted a sufficient time interval and was offered the effective possibility to voluntarily execute the obligation established by the individual administrative act, but neglected to do so, there is no other measure capable of ensuring the effective execution of the administrative act.

Thus, initially, by Decision No. 28/3/2025, a deadline of 180 days was set for the execution of the prescription. During this period, the creditor submitted six monthly reports regarding the measures taken.

Subsequently, after verifying the execution and finding that the obligation had not been fully executed, by Decision No. 10/1/2026, an additional deadline of 90 days was granted to the creditor, summoning them to execute the prescription and explicitly informing them that, in case of non-execution, a coercive fine of 5,000 conventional units would be applied.

In the same vein, it must be recorded that, upon expiration of the deadlines granted for the execution of the prescription, it was not realized, and the application of the coercive fine represents an interference provided by law, which pursues a legitimate purpose – ensuring the execution of administrative acts.

Under these conditions, the support of OCN “MOGO LOANS” SRL according to which CNPF should have opted for a smaller fine, a new phased plan, an audit, or a new notification before applying the fine cannot be retained, as the application of the coercive fine occurred after the exhaustion of all measures provided by the Administrative Code undertaken by the supervisory authority, which proved insufficient to determine the full execution of the obligation established by the administrative act.

Moreover, granting a new phased term after the expiration of the additional 90-day term would deprive of useful effect the mechanism provided for in Article 181 of the Administrative Code, given that the debtor has already been offered the possibility to voluntarily execute the obligation, and did not fully realize it.

3) Reasonable – the public interest prevails over private interest, and the protection of financial service consumers, in accordance with the provisions of Law No. 202/2013, consists primarily in establishing norms of diligent and responsible conduct in establishing legal relationships for consumer credit.

Moreover, Law No. 202/2013 has, as its declared purpose, guaranteeing a high level of consumer protection, by establishing imperative standards, the central principles of this regulatory framework being: ensuring correct and intelligible information regarding the total cost of credit; prohibiting the imposition of hidden or excessive financial burdens that may affect the consumer’s ability to understand the extent of the contractual commitment.

First, the amount of the fine was established within the limits expressly provided by Article 181(4) of the Administrative Code, namely between 20 and 10,000 conventional units.

Second, in establishing the amount of the coercive fine, CNPF examined the ratio between the amount of the fine and the economic interest of the debtor in non-execution of the obligation. Thus, the established fine does not represent a disproportionate burden in relation to the obligation to be executed, its amount being lower than the patrimonial advantage that the professional can maintain through non-execution of the prescription. Therefore, the measure aims to eliminate the economic incentive for delaying execution and maintaining financial obligations on consumers, established contrary to law.

Regarding the invocation of the “actual residual damage to consumers,” CNPF holds that the coercive fine does not constitute a remedial measure or compensation calculated based on the individual damage suffered by each consumer. Its purpose is to compel the debtor to execute the obligation established by the administrative act.

Therefore, the existence of some refunds, cancellations, or limitations of some claims does not, by itself, remove the necessity of the fine, as long as these measures have not resulted in the full execution of the prescribed obligation.

Additionally, it is reiterated that Article 181(4) of the Administrative Code does not establish a mathematical formula, according to which the amount of the coercive fine must be equal to or proportional to a certain economic advantage of the debtor. The norm imposes that the economic interest of the debtor in non-performance of the obligation constitutes one of the relevant criteria for individualizing the amount of the fine, and in this case, this criterion was evaluated by CNPF, including by reference to the patrimonial advantage that the professional can obtain through non-execution of the prescription and the necessity that the established fine be capable of determining the effective and prompt execution of the obligation.

Complementarily, regarding the participant’s allegations concerning the solution adopted by CNPF in the case of IM CIA “TRANSELIT” SA, it must be mentioned that the circumstances recorded in CNPF Decision No. 20/3 of 28.04.2026 cannot be extrapolated automatically to the factual and legal situation examined in the present procedure.

The mere existence of partial execution of an obligation in another distinct procedure, concerning another supervised entity and different factual and legal circumstances, cannot determine the supervisory authority to apply the same solution in the present case or automatically reduce the amount of the fine.

Since the individualization of the sanction is realized according to the concrete circumstances of each case, the solution adopted in the case of IM CIA “TRANSELIT” SA is based on distinct factual and legal circumstances and cannot be directly compared to the present case, as between the situation examined in the case of IM CIA “TRANSELIT” SA and that of OCN “MOGO LOANS” SRL there are differences regarding the circumstances of fact, the measures taken for execution, and the degree of execution found.

Under these conditions, the solution adopted in the case of IM CIA “TRANSELIT” SA cannot constitute a benchmark for individualizing the coercive fine applied to OCN “MOGO LOANS” SRL, because the principle of equal treatment, enshrined in Article 23 of the Administrative Code, presupposes the application of equal treatment to entities in similar situations, and not the application of an identical solution in cases characterized by different factual and legal circumstances. Therefore, the solution adopted in the case of IM CIA “TRANSELIT” SA, in the absence of relevant similarity between the situations examined, cannot serve as a basis for reducing the amount of the fine applied in the present case.

4.5 With reference to the alleged insufficient reasoning of the contested individual administrative act, invoked at point IV subpoint 5 of the Preliminary Request

Given the above, it is held that, although the participant refers to Article 118 of the Administrative Code, it does not indicate concretely which of the criteria provided for in Article 2 letters a), b), or c) were not respected.

The participant limits themselves to asserting that the contested Decision must allow the identification of the essential grounds, the manner of exercising discretion, and the response to the arguments presented at the hearing; however, for a criticism based on Article 118(2) to be admissible, it is necessary to clearly individualize the element of reasoning alleged to be missing, in relation to each of the mentioned letters.

In this regard, it should be noted that Decision No. 34/1/2026 fulfills the requirements of Article 118(2) letters a)-c). Regarding letter a), the act indicates the applicable legal grounds, namely the imperative norm established in Article 181 and Article 186(1) of the Administrative Code.

Regarding letter b) of Article 118(2) of the Administrative Code, it should be retained that, in the contested act, the supervisory authority explained with sufficient reasoning that, following the analysis, CNPF implicitly examined the entirety of the materials accumulated during the administrative procedure, including the monthly reports submitted by OCN “MOGO LOANS” SRL, the explanations and documents presented subsequently, Report No. 7 of 28.05.2026 and the documents attached to it, as well as information regarding the notification, refund, recalculation, cancellation, and assignment of claims measures undertaken by the participant. At the same time, the draft administrative settlement contract presented by OCN “MOGO LOANS” SRL, including the updated version of 03.07.2026, as well as the participant’s position, exposed during the hearing of 23.06.2026, were examined. Following the examination of the mentioned materials, CNPF found that, although OCN “MOGO LOANS” SRL undertook a series of measures to execute the prescription, these did not lead to the full execution of the obligation established in point 3 of Decision No. 28/3/2025. Therefore, the support according to which the supervisory authority ignored the evidence presented by the participant cannot be retained; it essentially represents the participant’s disagreement with the assessment of evidence and the conclusions formulated by CNPF, whereas the obligation provided by Article 118(2) letter b) of the Administrative Code concerns the exposition of relevant factual circumstances and the evidence on which the solution is based, and not the obligation of the supervisory authority to accept the legal or evidentiary assessment proposed by the participant.

Respectively, in light of the provisions of Article 118(2) letter b) of the Administrative Code, it must be mentioned that the supervisory authority motivated, in a clear and coherent manner, the manner of exercising discretionary power, respecting the provisions of Article 137 of the same Code. It found the non-execution of the enforceable administrative act and the necessity of applying this measure to ensure the execution of the obligation provided for in point 3 of Decision No. 28/3/2025. Furthermore, the application of the measure does not represent an option of the supervisory authority, but results from the legal obligation to ensure respect for the regulatory framework applicable in the matter of consumer protection. In this regard, the authority does not have discretion regarding the possibility to sanction or not such an infringement, but acts within the limits of competences established by law. Thus, the solution adopted is also justified by the application of the principle of proportionality, enshrined in Article 29 of the Administrative Code.

With reference to letter c), it should be mentioned that the contested Decision contains sufficient information regarding the administrative procedure and the essential evidentiary material taken into account when issuing the Decision, namely: the request and receipt of explanations, ensuring the right to a hearing, under the conditions of Article 94 of the Administrative Code, respectively carrying out the necessary investigations based on Article 85 and Article 87 of the same Code, with indication of the evidentiary elements retained. Thus, this exposition fully fulfills the legal requirement to briefly reflect the course of the procedure, as well as the evidence that underpinned the unfavorable individual administrative act.

4.6 Regarding the alleged violation of the right to a hearing, invoked at point IV subpoint 6 of the Preliminary Request

In this case, the procedural guarantee provided for in Article 94 of the Administrative Code was respected; OCN “MOGO LOANS” SRL was notified regarding the exercise of the right to be heard, and on 23.06.2026, its representatives effectively participated in the hearing and exposed their position regarding the circumstances relevant for resolving the procedure.

The fact that, subsequently, the participant presented an updated version of the draft administrative settlement contract does not lead to the conclusion that the authority was obliged to organize a new hearing.

Thus, the participant failed to demonstrate that they were deprived of the effective possibility to expose their position on new and relevant elements that were determinative for the adoption of the administrative act; moreover, the mere modification or completion of one’s own proposal by the participant, after the holding of the hearing, cannot be equated with the appearance of new circumstances that would require the resumption of hearings. In this case, the updated version of the contract draft represented a proposal formulated by the participant themselves in the procedure, and not a new element introduced unilaterally by the public authority, regarding which OCN “MOGO LOANS” SRL did not have the possibility to express its position.

Furthermore, to support the existence of a violation of the right to a hearing, it is not sufficient to invoke the procedural chronology, namely the fact that the updated version of the draft administrative contract was presented after the hearing of 23.06.2026. It is necessary to indicate concretely which of the modifications introduced subsequently was determinative for the solution adopted by the administrative act and, in what way, the lack of an additional hearing prevented the participant from effectively defending their rights and legitimate interests, given that OCN “MOGO LOANS” SRL benefited from the effective possibility to participate in the procedure, was heard, and presented its position.

4.7 Regarding the alleged lack of individualization of the refusal to conclude the administrative settlement contract, invoked at point IV subpoint 7 of the Preliminary Request, CNPF appraises it as declaratory, not supported by pertinent and convincing arguments; moreover, according to Article 155 of the Administrative Code, the settlement contract represents a public law contract by which, based on reciprocal concessions and as a result of a rational assessment of the state of fact or law, an existing uncertainty is removed.

Therefore, the institution of the settlement contract does not represent a general mechanism by which the recipient of an administrative act can obtain, unilaterally, the extension of the execution term or the replacement of the obligation established by the administrative act with another execution mechanism.

In this case, CNPF did not identify the existence of legal or factual uncertainty that would justify substituting the obligation established by Decision No. 28/3/2025 with a new contractual arrangement.

On the contrary, the obligation to execute results from an individual administrative act issued previously and maintained, within the limits established by Decision No. 28/3/2025, and the subsequent procedure had as its object the verification of the level of execution thereof.

The proposals formulated by OCN “MOGO LOANS” SRL regarding an execution calendar, additional notifications, audit, reporting, and controls do not constitute, by themselves, a “reciprocal concession” within the meaning of Article 155 of the Administrative Code.

Furthermore, accepting a new execution mechanism, under the conditions that the obligation established by the administrative act has not been fully executed, would be justified only to the extent that it would lead to an effective resolution of the existing uncertainty and would not unjustifiably diminish the protection of persons in relation to whom the remedial measure was disposed.

In the circumstances of the case, CNPF assessed that the proposal presented does not remove the problem of full execution of the obligation and does not justify substituting the execution mechanism with a settlement contract.

On this aspect, it is evident that OCN “MOGO LOANS” SRL attempted to resort to the institution of the administrative settlement contract with the purpose of evading the execution of Decision No. 28/3/2025, to the detriment of consumers.

4.8 With reference to the participant’s argument invoked at point IV subpoint 8 of the Preliminary Request, concerning the alleged non-conformity between the summons and the applied measure

In this case, by Decision No. 10/1/2026, OCN “MOGO LOANS” SRL was summoned to execute the prescription established in point 3 of Decision No. 28/3, within an additional deadline of 90 days from the communication of the Decision, and was also explicitly informed about the consequence of non-execution, namely the application of a coercive fine in the amount of 5,000 conventional units.

Therefore, the participant knew both the obligation whose execution was sought and the nature and amount of the coercive measure that was to be applied in case of non-execution.

Subsequent to the expiration of the 90-day term, CNPF carried out the verification of execution and found that the obligation had not been fully executed.

Under these circumstances, the application of the fine in the amount indicated in the summons does not represent a distinct or additional measure compared to the one for which the participant had been warned, but the realization of the coercive measure indicated, previously, in accordance with the procedure provided by the Administrative Code.

The fact that, between the moment of the summons and the moment of effective application of the fine, the participant undertook certain additional measures does not, by itself, remove the non-execution found upon expiration of the granted term, as long as these measures did not lead to the full execution of the obligation.

5. With regard to the subsidiary request regarding the reduction of the coercive fine, it must be recorded that it cannot be admitted in the absence of new circumstances that demonstrate that, at the date of application of the measure, the amount established by Decision No. 34/1/2026 was no longer necessary and proportional.

The additional measures reported by the participant were analyzed, but they did not lead to the full execution of the obligation; moreover, reducing the fine exclusively considering the existence of partial compliance measures would diminish its coercive effect, without ensuring the realization of the purpose pursued by law, namely compelling the debtor to execute the action established. Under these conditions, CNPF did not identify any specific basis for reducing the amount of the coercive fine established by Decision No. 34/1/2026.

6. With regard to the request for cancellation/modification of point 4 of Decision No. 34/1/2026, it should be retained that the obligation to inform CNPF regarding the measures taken to execute the administrative act represents a legal prerogative of the competent authority, and the verification of the manner of execution of the acts issued by it constitutes an integral part of its duties.

In this case, it should be pointed out that the object of Decision No. 34/1/2026 is the application of the coercive fine, and the provisions of point 4 of the same Decision establish on the part of OCN “MOGO LOANS” SRL the obligation to inform CNPF regarding the measures taken, in order to execute it.

Therefore, the obligation provided for in point 4 of Decision No. 34/1/2026 is sufficiently clear and determined both regarding the subject obliged and the object and the term of execution, namely informing CNPF, within 30 days from the date of communication of the Decision, regarding the execution of the measure disposed by it. Under these conditions, the participant’s support according to which the reporting obligation would be undetermined or would require the establishment of a contract-by-contract reporting methodology cannot be retained, because such a methodology does not result from the object and nature of the obligation established by point 4.

7. With regard to the request formulated by OCN “MOGO LOANS” SRL through the Preliminary Request and the written explanations provided for the hearing regarding the granting of access to the administrative file, it must be recorded that on 22.07.2026, within CNPF, the request of OCN “MOGO LOANS” SRL regarding the issuance of missing documents and information from the administrative file was registered (with no. 6231), by which it requested the provision, in electronic format, of the information and copies of documents related to CNPF Decision No. 10/1/2026.

On the subject, it should be specified that Decisions No. 10/1/2026 and No. 34/1/2026 were issued within the same administrative file and are successive acts within the same administrative procedure.

In order to ensure the effective access of the participant to the materials of the administrative file, by CNPF letter no. 04-5/3609 of 17.08.2026, OCN “MOGO LOANS” SRL was granted access to the administrative file, including by transmitting it in electronic format, under the conditions requested.

Furthermore, given that, through the written explanations provided for the hearing, OCN “MOGO LOANS” SRL requested the granting of an additional term of at least 5 working days, calculated from the date of full communication of the administrative file, for the presentation of additional explanations and evidence, by the Disposition of the President of CNPF no. 671 of 18.08.2026 regarding the suspension of the term of the preliminary procedure initiated by the Preliminary Request submitted by OCN “MOGO LOANS” SRL, the preliminary procedure was suspended, in order to ensure the effective possibility of the participant to take note of the materials of the administrative file and to present, if applicable, arguments, explanations, or additional evidence in support of its position.

Under these conditions, the participant was provided with the effective opportunity to familiarize themselves with the materials of the administrative case and to present, prior to the resolution of the preliminary procedure, arguments, explanations, or additional evidence in relation to them.

Nevertheless, following the communication of the administrative case file, OCN "MOGO LOANS" SRL did not present to CNPF arguments, explanations, or additional evidence in relation to the materials of the administrative case communicated to it.

With regard to the preliminary procedure, it should be noted that, according to the Order of the Chairman No. 560 dated 04.08.2026 regarding the extension of the term of the preliminary procedure, initiated by the Preliminary Request submitted by OCN "MOGO LOANS" SRL, regarding the cancellation of the Decision of the National Financial Market Commission No. 34/1 dated 13.07.2026 regarding the application of a coercive fine to OCN "MOGO LOANS" SRL, related to the execution of the prescription from point 3 of the Decision of the National Financial Market Commission No. 28/3 dated 09.06.2025 regarding the results of the thematic control carried out within OCN "MOGO LOANS" SRL, the term of the preliminary procedure was extended by 15 days.

Additionally, it should be noted that, by letter of CNPF No. 06-5/3311 dated 04.08.2026, the participant was informed, in accordance with the provisions of Article 94(2) of the Administrative Code, about the exercise of the right to be heard, in relation to the circumstances relevant to the act to be adopted in the context of the Preliminary Request, as well as about the fact that the hearing is to be carried out in writing, being granted a term until 10.08.2026 for sending, to the email address office@cnpf.md, the statement, as a hearing, which should contain arguments additional to those stated in the Preliminary Request, if they can be formulated.

Consequently, on 10.08.2026, OCN "MOGO LOANS" SRL submitted written explanations, as a hearing, by which it expressed its position on the issues invoked within the framework of the preliminary procedure.

Based on the factual circumstances and the applicable legal norms, in the situation where the participant failed to justify the validity of the request to annul Decision No. 34/1/2026, the Preliminary Request should be rejected, as no violations of material or procedural norms have been identified.

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

1. The Preliminary Request submitted by OCN "MOGO LOANS" SRL to annul the Decision of the National Financial Market Commission No. 34/1 dated 13.07.2026 regarding the application of a coercive fine to OCN "MOGO LOANS" SRL, related to the execution of the prescription from point 3 of the Decision of the National Financial Market Commission No. 28/3 dated 09.06.2025 regarding the results of the thematic control carried out within OCN "MOGO LOANS" SRL (registered at CNPF with No. 6207 dated 22.07.2026) is rejected.

2. This Decision may be contested by an administrative lawsuit submitted to the Chișinău Court, Râșcani seat (MD-2068, Chișinău city, Kiev 3 street), 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 CNPF (www.cnpf.md).

Adrian GHEORGHIȚĂ,
VICE-PRESIDENT