REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA
NATIONAL COMMISSION of FINANCIAL MARKET

DECISION

6 October 2026
No. 52/17

On the petition registered with the National Commission of Financial Market under no. 6886 on 07.08.2026, in relation to NCO "MOGO LOANS" SRL

On 07.08.2026, within the National Commission of Financial Market (NCFM), was registered (under no. 6886) the petition of Mr. [...] (debtor/consumer/borrower), submitted by his representative, Mr. [...], requesting the NCFM's intervention with regard to the legal relationship mentioned infra.

I. Circumstances of fact

1. The legal relationship between NCO "MOGO LOANS" SRL (creditor/professional/lender) and the debtor was established based on the Credit Agreement no. [...] of [...] (Agreement), concluded for a term of 84 months, having as object the granting of a non-bank credit in the amount of 116 160,00 lei, the total amount payable by the consumer being 348 414,16 lei.

2. The essential conditions of the Agreement include:

2.1.the total cost of the credit, which comprises:

2.1.1. the interest rate: fixed, 24,00 percent per year;

2.1.2. the credit granting commission: 10 560,00 lei (10,00 percent of the credit amount, minimum 5 000 lei);

2.1.3. monthly credit administration fee: 1 267,20 lei;

2.2.the annual percentage rate (APR): 55,12 percent per year;

2.3.payment method: annuity, the credit repaid in installments, according to the Payment Schedule: in 84 installments;

2.4. annex no. 1, namely:

2.4.1. the one-time penalty for late payment: 200 lei;

2.4.2. the commission for termination of the Agreement: 5 percent of the credit balance;

2.4.3. the commission for early repayment: according to pt. 5.6 of the "General Provisions";

2.4.4 the commission for the preparation of documents in connection with traffic fines, related to the pledged asset: 50 lei;

2.4.5. the commission for notifying the client, regarding late payment or termination of the Agreement: 50 lei;

2.4.6. the commission for re-conclusion of the Agreement: 7,5 percent of the credit balance;

bd. Ștefan cel Mare și Sfânt, no. 77, mun. Chișinău, MD 2012, tel: (373 22) 859 401, www.cnpf.md, e-mail: office@cnpf.md

2.4.7. the commission for parking the car, which is the object of the pledged asset: 800 lei;

2.4.8. the fee for changing the period: 1 percent of the credit balance, minimum 1 000 lei, first time free.

II.Procedural circumstances

3. Considering that a party to the contractual relationship in question is NCO "MOGO LOANS" SRL, according to the Disposition of the President of the NCFM no. 631 of 14.08.2026 regarding the ex officio involvement of NCO "MOGO LOANS" SRL in the administrative procedure, initiated by the petition of Mr. [...], the representative of Mr. [...], and the suspension of the administrative procedure, the creditor was involved in the administrative procedure, being requested, by letter no. 04-5/3600 of 17.08.2026, to present the necessary explanations, a copy of the Credit File, as well as a copy of other related documents.

At the same time, the administrative procedure was suspended until 28.08.2026 inclusive.

4. Consequently, on 28.08.2026, the creditor sent to the NCFM the requested documents (registered under no. 7633).

5. At the same time, taking into account the imperative of conducting complete investigations, which involves time for the meticulous examination of the evidence presented and the formation of objective and reasoned conclusions, by the Disposition of the President of the NCFM no. 876 of 17.09.2026 regarding the extension of the general term of the administrative procedure, initiated by the petition of Mr. [...], submitted by his representative, Mr. [...], the general term of the administrative procedure was extended until 05.10.2026.

6. Concurrently, in order to ensure the exercise of the right of NCO "MOGO LOANS" SRL to be heard in the administrative procedure, by the NCFM letter no. 04-5/4583 of 23.09.2026, it was informed about the possibility of presenting, by way of hearing, explanations and a copy of additional documents related to the circumstances invoked in the petition.

7. As a result, on 29.09.2026, within the NCFM, was registered (under no. 8816) the letter of NCO "MOGO LOANS" SRL, by which it requested the extension of the term for presenting the written opinion by way of hearing, related to the administrative procedure, initiated by the petition of Mr. [...], until 05.10.2026 inclusive.

8. Subsequently, by the Disposition of the President of the NCFM no. 977 of 29.09.2026 regarding the suspension of the administrative procedure, initiated by the petition of Mr. [...], submitted by his representative, Mr. [...], the administrative procedure was suspended until 05.10.2026 inclusive.

9. Consequently, on 05.10.2026, NCO "MOGO LOANS" SRL presented the documents requested by the NCFM (documents registered under no. 9089).

III. Circumstances of law

10. In accordance with art. 37 para. (2) of Law no. 105/2003 on consumer protection (Law no. 105/2003), "(2) The National Commission of Financial Market carries out the control of compliance by the subjects indicated in art. 4 para. (21) of Law no. 192/1998 on the National Commission of Financial Market with the provisions of art. 1069 – 1081 of the Civil Code in the part referring to contracts concluded with consumers and the finding of abusive clauses in contracts, upon the consumer's complaint or ex officio, under the conditions of the law.".

11. According to art. 1 of Law no. 105/2003, "consumer" is "any natural person who intends to order or procure or who orders, procures or uses products, services for needs unrelated to entrepreneurial or professional activity;".

The same definition is contained in art. 3 of Law no. 202/2013 on credit agreements for consumers (Law no. 202/2013).

12. In accordance with Art. 3 para. (1) and para. (2) of the Civil Code, "(1) Any natural person who, in a civil legal relationship, acts predominantly for purposes unrelated to entrepreneurial or professional activity has the status of consumer. The natural person does not have the status of consumer if the other party to the civil legal relationship does not have the status of professional. (2) Any natural or legal person under public or private law who, in a civil legal relationship, acts for purposes related to entrepreneurial or professional activity has the status of professional, even if the person does not aim to obtain a profit from this activity.".

13. In accordance with Art. 16 lit. a) and lit. b) of Law No. 105/2003, "The consumer, when concluding contracts, has the following rights: a) to freely make decisions when purchasing the product and service, without being imposed in contracts abusive clauses or clauses that may favor the use of unfair commercial practices, likely to influence his choice; b) to benefit from a clear and precise drafting of the contractual clauses, including those regarding the main characteristics and warranty conditions, from the exact indication of the price or tariff, as well as from the precise establishment of the credit conditions and interest rates;".

14. Moreover, the Civil Code establishes, in Art. 10 para. (1), that "(1) Natural and legal persons participating in civil legal relationships must exercise their rights and perform their obligations in good faith, in accordance with the law, the contract, public order and good morals. Good faith is presumed until proven otherwise.".

15. Additionally, according to Art. 11 para. (1) of the Civil Code, "(1) Good faith is a standard of conduct of a party, characterized by correctness, honesty, openness and taking into account the interests of the other party to the legal relationship.".

16. In accordance with the provisions of Art. 1072 of the Civil Code, "(1) In a contract between a professional and a consumer, a clause that has not been individually negotiated is considered abusive if it is proposed by the professional and significantly disadvantages, contrary to good faith, the consumer. (2) Articles 1077-1079 contain the list of clauses considered abusive in the contract between a professional and a consumer without the need for their assessment in accordance with para. (1) of this article and Art. 1075. (3) The lists provided by the articles mentioned in para. (2) shall not be interpreted as exhaustive lists.".

17. Additionally, according to Art. 1069 para. (1) of the Civil Code, "(1) A clause proposed by one of the parties is not individually negotiated if the other party was unable to influence its content, in particular because it was drafted in advance, regardless of whether it is part of standard clauses or not.".

18. In accordance with Art. 1071 of the Civil Code, "(1) The person who presents clauses that have not been individually negotiated is obliged to ensure that they are drafted and communicated in clear and intelligible language, as well as to be legible. This requirement applies to the entire text, including footnotes, references to other texts or specifications of any nature. (2) In a contract between a professional and a consumer, a clause proposed by the professional in breach of the transparency obligation imposed by the provisions of para. (1) may be considered abusive on this sole ground.".

19. Additionally, Art. 1075 para. (1) lit. (a) of the Civil Code establishes that, "(1) When assessing the abusive nature of a contractual clause within the meaning of Art. 1072 para. (1), Art. 1073 and 1074, account shall be taken of: a) compliance with the transparency obligation provided for in Art. 1071;".

20. Also relevant are the provisions of Art. 1075 para. (2) of the Civil Code, according to which, "(2) The assessment of the abusive nature of clauses cannot relate to the subject matter of the contract nor to the adequacy of the price or remuneration, on the one hand, in relation to the goods, works or services provided in exchange for them, on the other hand, if the transparency obligation provided for in Art. 1071 has been complied with. The subject matter of the contract and the price-quality ratio may be taken into account when assessing the abusive nature of the other contractual clauses.".

21. Under the conditions of Art. 329 para. (1) of the Civil Code, "(1) In consumer contracts, abusive clauses are null and void, as well as clauses that derogate from legal provisions from which derogation is prohibited to the detriment of the consumer (protection nullity).".

III. CNPF's Assessment

22. Analyzing the contractual clauses, the information in the documents submitted by the creditor and the debtor, in light of the requirements of Law No. 105/2003, Law No. 202/2013 and the Civil Code, in particular, in relation to the normative framework set out above, the CNPF reveals the following:

22.1. Ab initio, the establishment of the status of professional, which OCN "MOGO LOANS" SRL possesses in relation to the consumer, is claimed.

In accordance with the information in the State Register of Legal Entities, OCN "MOGO LOANS" SRL has, as its main object of activity, inter alia, the activity of granting non-bank loans, being registered in the Register of authorized non-bank lending organizations.

Thus, it is concluded that OCN "MOGO LOANS" SRL carries out non-bank lending activity on a professional basis, based on the clauses and conditions offered by it, the contractual clauses being drafted in advance for a multitude of contracts.

22.2. Non-compliance with Law No. 202/2013 regarding the use of the notion "total amount payable"

22.2.1. In this context, the erroneous presentation of the essential conditions of the Contract is noted, by operating with terms distinct from the notions provided for in Art. 3 of Law No. 202/2013. In this way, the creditor accepts the presentation of information to the consumer in a distorted manner, which denotes non-performance of the obligation to present the information in the contract in a clear and intelligible manner.

In this regard, it should be noted that, according to the definition provided in Art. 3 of Law No. 202/2013, the total amount payable by the consumer is “the sum between the total amount of the credit and the total cost of the credit for the consumer.”.

In the case at hand, it is found that the creditor wrongly defined the total amount payable by the consumer as being “the total costs related to the credit”, a fact which misleads the consumer, whereas, according to the notion defined in Art. 3 of Law No. 202/2013, the total amount of the credit – the total sums made available under a credit contract, and the total cost of the credit are all the costs, including interest, commissions, fees and any other type of costs that the consumer must bear in connection with the credit contract and which are known to the creditor, with the exception of notarial fees. Therefore, by relating the cited legal norms to the revealed factual circumstances, the creditor's breach of the legal requirements to present, in a clear and precise manner, the information regarding the essential conditions of the Contract is attested, which caused the consumer to be erroneously informed regarding the total amount payable and the total cost of the credit applicable under the Contract.

22.2.2. Additionally, it should be mentioned that, in this case, a credit contract was concluded between OCN “MOGO LOANS” SRL and the debtor. According to the definition contained in Art. 1763 para. (1) of the Civil Code, this is a credit contract, whereby “[...] a bank or a non-bank credit organization (creditor) undertakes to make available to another person (debtor) a sum of money as a loan, subject to its repayment, the payment of interest and other related payments, or assumes any other commitment to acquire a claim or to make a payment, to extend the repayment term of the debt or to issue any guarantees.”.

In this context, the use in the Contract of the words “loan”, “lender” and “borrower”, which are terms specific to a loan contract, is improper and may mislead the consumer in light of the legal effects it produces, whereas the regulations regarding loans establish more favorable conditions for the debtor, with the potential to determine the latter to accept the conclusion of such a contract.

22.3. Non-compliance with the mandatory requirements of Art. 5 para. (2) letter c) of Law No. 202/2013

At point 4 of Part I. “Special provisions” of the Contract, it is established “Monthly credit administration fee (1 267,20 lei)”.

In this context, according to Art. 5 para. (2) letter c) of Law No. 202/2013, “(2) The pre-contractual information is provided: […] c) by means of the form presented in Annex No. 1;” and, correspondingly to Art. 5 para. (4) of the same law, “(4) Any other additional information the creditor provides to the consumer in a separate document, which may be annexed to the form presented in Annex No. 1.”.

In the case at hand, by relating the legal norms to the revealed factual circumstances, it is attested that, although the Payment Schedule, annexed to the Pre-contractual Information, includes the information regarding the monthly payment of the credit administration fee, the cost in question is nevertheless not found in the “Pre-contractual Information” form presented to the debtor. That information was not included in the “Costs of the credit” box, depriving the debtor of the possibility to transparently analyze the pre-contractual information, given the weight of this cost in the “Credit amount”.

22.4. Non-compliance with the mandatory requirements of Art. 10 of Law No. 202/2013

According to Art. 10 para. (3) letter a) and letter g) of Law No. 202/2013, “(3) The credit contract specifies clearly and concisely: a) the type of credit; [...] g) the annual percentage rate of charge and the total amount payable by the consumer, indicated in a highlighted manner (in bold characters) and calculated at the time of conclusion of the credit contract; all the assumptions used for calculating this rate are mentioned;”.

In the case at hand, the Contract does not specify the type of credit granted, this being indicated only in the “Pre-contractual Information” form.

Also, in Part I “Special provisions” of the Contract, the annual percentage rate of charge (55,12 percent) and the total amount payable by the consumer (rendered as “Total costs related to the credit” – 348 414,16 lei) are not indicated in a highlighted manner (in bold characters), as required by Art. 10 para. (3) letter g) of Law No. 202/2013.

Therefore, by relating the cited legal norms to the revealed factual circumstances, the creditor's breach of the requirements provided in Art. 10 para. (3) letter a) and letter g) of Law No. 202/2013 is attested.

22.5. Non-compliance with the requirements provided in Art. 20 para. (1) of Law No. 202/2013

According to point 5.5 of the Contract, “The Borrower is entitled, at any time, by notifying in writing OCN «Mogo Loans» SRL 5 (five) working days in advance, to repay in advance in full or in part the Contractual Payments[...]”.

In accordance with Art. 20 para. (1) of Law No. 202/2013, the consumer has the right, at any time, to discharge, in full or in part, the obligations arising from a credit contract, benefiting, in this case, from the corresponding reduction of the total cost of the credit. From the content of the norm it follows that the right to early repayment may be exercised, at any time, during the contractual relationship, the law not conditioning its exercise on compliance with a minimum notice period for the benefit of the creditor.

Moreover, point 5.5 of the Contract is not limited to establishing a notification obligation, but requires that the notification be made 5 working days before repayment. Consequently, the consumer who requests early repayment of the obligations does not benefit from the effects of early repayment at the chosen moment, but only after the expiry of the term established contractually.

Therefore, the 5 working day term restricts the exercise of the right recognized to the consumer by Art. 20 para. (1) of Law no. 202/2013, since it transforms the right of repayment "at any time" into a right exercisable only after completing a minimum waiting period, established for the benefit of the creditor, which also influences the amount of the reduction of the total cost of the credit.

22.6. Non-compliance with the requirements provided in Art. 15 para. (3) lit. c) of Law no. 202/2013

According to point 11.2 lit. h) of the Contract, it constitutes a case of non-performance, which entitles the creditor to declare the termination of the Contract, the situation in which "third parties file claims against the Borrower, the total amount of which exceeds 20% of the credit balance".

At the same time, point 9.6 of the Contract provides that, in the event of one of the situations established in point 11.2 of the Contract, the creditor is entitled to terminate the Contract through a written declaration of termination, granting a term of 15 days for the payment of the contractual payments.

According to the contractual definitions, "Contractual payments" represent the payments owed by the borrower according to the Contract, including credit payments, penalties and other payments.

At the same time, "Credit payments" include, as the case may be, the monthly credit installments, the "balloon" type payment or the single payment, depending on the applicable repayment method.

Additionally, point 11.3 of the Contract establishes that "The termination of the Contract suspends the use of the credit balance by the Borrower, who is obliged to pay to OCN «Mogo Loans» SRL within the term indicated in point 9.6 the Contractual payments, in the amount indicated in the termination declaration".

The examination as a whole of the clauses provided in point 9.6, point 11.2 lit. h) and point 11.3 of the Contract reveals that, although the Contract uses the notion of "termination", the effect of the contractual mechanism consists in the early termination of the contractual relationship and in obliging the consumer to, within a term of 15 days, pay the contractual payments in the amount established in the termination declaration, these including also the credit payments.

Under these conditions, to the extent that the termination declaration includes the credit balance, which, according to the Payment Schedule, was to become due subsequently, and during the 15 days, the debtor is bound to pay not only the payments due at the moment of declaring the alleged termination, it is attested that the contractual mechanism determines the loss of the benefit of the term and produces, from a functional standpoint, the effect of declaring the early maturity of the credit.

According to Art. 15 para. (3) lit. c) of Law no. 202/2013, it is prohibited to introduce in credit contracts clauses through which the creditor can declare the credit due early in the case where the consumer has not fulfilled his obligations according to other credit contracts, concluded with other creditors.

Moreover, point 11.2 lit. h) of the Contract has a general wording, referring to claims filed by "third parties", without excluding claims resulting from other credit contracts, concluded by the consumer with other creditors. Thus, the clause allows the application of the termination mechanism, provided in point 9.6 and point 11.3 of the Contract, including in the situation where the respective claims arise from the non-performance of obligations related to other credit relationships.

The circumstance that the Contract qualifies the respective mechanism as "termination" is not decisive to the extent that its concrete effect consists in obliging the consumer to early payment of the credit balance, under conditions specific to declaring early maturity. The legal qualification is to be carried out by reference to the effect produced by the contractual clauses, but not exclusively to the terminology used by the professional.

Consequently, to the extent that point 11.2 lit. h), corroborated with point 9.6 and point 11.3 of the Contract, allows obliging the consumer to early repayment of the credit balance, as a result of the non-performance of obligations resulting from other credit contracts, concluded with other creditors, the clause contradicts the prohibition provided in Art. 15 para. (3) lit. c) of Law no. 202/2013.

22.7. The abusive nature of certain contractual clauses, which establish various fees and commissions

22.7.1. Corresponding to point 1 of Part I "Special provisions" of the Contract, the credit amount constitutes 105 600,00 lei, and according to point 3 of the same part, the total credit amount is 116 160,00 lei.

At the same time, point 2 of Part I "Special provisions" establishes "The credit granting commission (10% of the Credit amount, min. 5 000 lei) – 10 560,00 lei".

According to Art. 1071 para. (1) of the Civil Code, the person who presents clauses that have not been individually negotiated is obliged to ensure that they are drafted and communicated in a clear and intelligible language, and in accordance with para. (2) of the same article, in a contract concluded between a professional and a consumer, the clause proposed by the professional, in breach of the transparency obligation, can be considered abusive only on this sole ground. In this sense, the transparency obligation is not limited to the formally intelligible drafting of a clause or to the numerical indication of the amount of a payment obligation. In the case of a clause that establishes a pecuniary obligation on the consumer, the contract must allow him to understand, by examining the clause itself and by corroborating it with the other contractual provisions, the concrete mechanism of execution of the obligation, including the moment at which it becomes due and the conditions under which the creditor is entitled to request payment.

In this respect, point 4.3 of Part II "General provisions" of the Contract provides that "the Borrower agrees to pay O.C.N. "Mogo Loans" SRL the loan arrangement commission, in accordance with the Payment Schedule".

Therefore, the contractual clause itself conditions the performance of the obligation to pay the commission on the content of the Payment Schedule, this being the contractual document in which the consumer must be able to identify the time and manner of performance of that obligation.

However, from the examination of the Payment Schedule, it is found that it does not contain the arrangement commission, does not individualize a payment corresponding to the amount of 10 560,00 lei and does not indicate the date or deadline by which this commission is to be paid.

Consequently, although the Contract indicates the existence and amount of the arrangement commission, it does not allow the consumer to determine the time at which the payment obligation becomes due and, implicitly, the manner of performance of that obligation.

The consumer cannot establish, on the basis of the contractual clauses, whether that amount must be paid on the date of conclusion of the Contract, at the time of disbursement of the loan, together with one of the installments provided in the Payment Schedule or at another time.

Moreover, the express reference in point 4.3 of Part II "General provisions" of the Contract to the Payment Schedule legitimately creates the expectation that the payment deadline for the commission can be identified in its content. The omission of the commission from the Payment Schedule thus leads to a lack of coherence between the contractual clauses and prevents the consumer from determining, unequivocally, the mechanism for performing the payment obligation.

In the same context, it should be noted that the administrative file contains Payment Order no. 2345 dated 01.07.2019, according to which the consumer was disbursed the equivalent amount of 105 600,00 lei, which attests to the withholding of that commission at the time of disbursement, a fact which does not result from the Contract.

Therefore, point 4.3 of Part II "General provisions", read in conjunction with point 2 of Part I "Special provisions" of the Contract and with the Payment Schedule, does not meet the transparency requirement laid down in Art. 1071(1) of the Civil Code, since the consumer is not placed in a position to determine, clearly and foreseeably, the time at which the obligation to pay the arrangement commission becomes due.

22.7.2. Annex no. 1 to the Contract contains a clause according to which the creditor may collect a "Commission for re-conclusion of the Contract – 7.5% of the Loan balance, first re-conclusion – free of charge".

In accordance with Art. 1765 of the Civil Code, in addition to interest, the parties may agree on a commission for services provided in connection with the use of the credit.

Therefore, the establishment of a commission presupposes the existence of an identifiable service in connection with the credit relationship, as well as the consumer's ability to determine its nature, the conditions under which the cost becomes owed and the extent of the payment obligation.

Although the clause sets the amount of the commission at 7.5 percent of the loan balance, the Contract does not define the notion of "re-conclusion of the Contract". In particular, from the contractual clauses, it does not result what circumstances may lead to the "re-conclusion of the Contract", the conditions justifying it and the situations in which it may take place, the relationship of this operation with the existing Contract, nor the time at which the obligation to pay that commission falls on the consumer. In the stated conditions, it is pointed out that the clause referred to does not meet the transparency requirement laid down in Art. 1071(1) of the Civil Code, and, under the conditions of paragraph (2) of the same article, it may be considered unfair on this sole ground.

22.7.3. According to Annex no. 1 to the Contract, the creditor is entitled to charge a "Commission for termination of the contract – 5% of the loan balance, for the contract that was terminated at the initiative of O.C.N. "Mogo Loans" SRL" and "Commission for notification of the client regarding late payment or termination of the Contract – 50 lei".

In accordance with Art. 1765 of the Civil Code, in addition to interest, the parties may agree on a commission for services provided in connection with the use of the credit. Therefore, the charging of a commission presupposes the existence of an identifiable service, and the consumer must be able to determine, from the content of the contract, the nature of the remunerated operation and the conditions under which it gives rise to the payment obligation.

At the same time, according to Art. 1071(1) of the Civil Code, clauses which have not been individually negotiated must be drafted in clear and intelligible language. In the case of clauses which impose costs on the consumer, this requirement is not limited to indicating the name and amount of the payment, but presupposes the possibility of identifying, by examining the Contract as a whole, the operation which generates the cost, the time of its charging, the limits within which it may be charged, as well as its relationship with the other contractual costs.

In this respect, the Contract already separately establishes a "Loan administration fee", defined as the fee to be paid "for the costs of administering the loan, intended also for advertising expenses or costs borne by the partners/distributors of OCN «Mogo Loans» SRL". From the wording of this definition it follows that that payment has a general scope, intended to cover the costs related to the administration of the loan, certain categories of expenses borne by the creditor for this purpose being indicated by way of example.

The existence of this fee is relevant for the analysis of the transparency of additional charges not because it would demonstrate, by itself, that the notifications or the termination are already remunerated through the administration fee, but because it would require identifying the relationship between this general fee and the additional costs, provided for the situation of non-performance; however, the Contract does not specify, with sufficient clarity, which are the concrete activities or operations included in the administration fee and, correspondingly, which are the distinct activities for which the notification fee is charged additionally.

Therefore, the consumer cannot determine from the contract whether the notification regarding the payment delay constitutes a distinct operation, excluded from the scope of the administration fee and remunerated separately, or represents one of the activities related to the administration of the credit relationship.

The transparency issue is amplified by the fact that the clause regarding the 50 lei fee does not establish whether this cost is charged for each notification sent, whether several notifications regarding the same delay can generate successive fees, whether the notification of the delay and of the termination constitute distinct triggering events, and whether there is a limit on the number of fees that can be charged in connection with the same situation of non-performance.

Thus, although the individual amount of the fee is indicated, the extent of the payment obligation is not determinable with sufficient clarity at the time of conclusion of the contract. The consumer can know that a notification is charged 50 lei, but cannot anticipate, based on the clause, how many such costs can be generated by the same contractual situation and under what conditions. This lack of delimitation is directly relevant in light of Art. 1071 of the Civil Code, since the transparency obligation concerns not only the mathematical expression of the amount, but also the contractual mechanism through which the payment obligation arises.

Regarding the clause “The fee for the termination of the contract – 5% of the credit balance”, it should be noted that it does not identify a service provided to the consumer in exchange for this payment. Termination represents, according to Art. 921 para. (1) of the Civil Code, a right of the entitled party, exercised by declaration notified to the other party. Under these conditions, the mere carrying out of the termination does not explain, by itself, the existence of a “service” provided to the consumer, within the meaning of Art. 1765 of the Civil Code.

If it is argued that this fee remunerates the administrative operations carried out upon termination, then the contract does not indicate the nature of these operations and does not allow the consumer to distinguish their cost from the other costs of administering the credit. If, on the contrary, the fee represents a financial consequence of the consumer's non-performance of obligations, then its legal nature must be examined and, as the case may be, its compatibility with the rules regarding clauses that establish disproportionate penalties for non-performance.

Likewise, the method of calculating the fee – 5 percent of the credit balance – does not, by itself, allow the identification of the remunerated service. The amount of the fee varies depending on the credit balance, but not depending on the nature, volume or frequency of the operations carried out by the creditor upon termination. This circumstance is not invoked as a mere criticism of the amount of the remuneration, but as a relevant element for verifying whether the consumer can understand what contractual service constitutes the consideration for the amount owed.

Therefore, the analysis of the clauses must not be based on the premise that the notification or termination activities are necessarily included in the “administration of the credit”. Such a conclusion does not result, with sufficient clarity, from the contractual wording. The relevance of the administration fee lies in the fact that it creates the need for a clear contractual delimitation between the general administration costs and the additional costs charged upon non-performance.

In the absence of this delimitation, the consumer cannot determine, with sufficient certainty, the nature of the remunerated service, the conditions under which the payment obligation arises and the limits within which the costs can be cumulated.

Consequently, the clauses regarding the fee for notifying the consumer and the fee for the termination of the Contract do not allow a sufficiently clear determination of the nature and limits of the costs established, of the services to which they correspond and of their relationship with the other contractual costs. To this extent, the respective clauses do not meet the transparency requirement provided for in Art. 1071 para. (1) of the Civil Code, and under the conditions of para. (2) of the same article, may be considered unfair.

22.7.4. According to point 8.2 of the Contract, “After OCN “Mogo Loans” SRL has received and analyzed the request for extension of the term, OCN “Mogo Loans” SRL decides at its own discretion whether or not to accept the modification of the credit term and regarding the Extension Fee, notifying the Borrower in this regard. The extension fee shall be applied and charged to the Borrower only if the maturity date is changed by more than 30 days.”. Point 8.5 of the Contract provides, “The extension of the credit term is applied and enters into force only after OCN “Mogo Loans” SRL has collected the Extension Fee and the Borrower has signed the new payment schedule”.

At the same time, from the examination of the Contract, it is found however that it does not establish the amount of the extension fee, its calculation formula, nor the objective and verifiable criteria based on which the amount is to be determined.

In accordance with Art. 1071 para. (1) of the Civil Code, clauses that have not been individually negotiated must be drafted in clear and intelligible language. In the case of a clause that imposes a cost on the consumer, compliance with this obligation presupposes not only indicating the existence of the cost, but also the consumer's possibility to determine, on the basis of the contract, the calculation mechanism and the extent of the financial obligation that may result for him.

Moreover, in this case, the consumer knows only the fact that extending the term by more than 30 days may generate the obligation to pay an extension fee, without being able to determine, at the time of concluding the Contract, its amount or limits. Furthermore, the wording of point 8.2 of the Contract, according to which the creditor decides "at its own discretion", including with regard to the extension fee, leaves the subsequent determination of the cost within the creditor's decision-making sphere, without indicating objective contractual criteria to limit this margin of appreciation.

This lack of determinability is all the more relevant given that, according to point 8.5 of the Contract, payment of the extension fee constitutes a condition for the entry into force of the amendment to the credit term. Thus, the consumer cannot assess in advance the cost of a possible extension, nor the economic consequences of exercising this option.

Consequently, the clauses provided in points 8.2 and 8.5 of the Contract do not allow the consumer to determine, on the basis of clear and intelligible criteria, the amount or the mechanism for setting the extension fee and, respectively, the economic consequences of extending the credit term, thus failing to comply with the transparency obligation provided in Art. 1071 para. (1) of the Civil Code.

22.8. The abusive and illegal nature of the clauses establishing the unilateral modification of the interest rate related to the credit

22.8.1. According to point 6.2 letter b) of the Contract, "6.2. The interest rate may be modified: [...] b) unilaterally by the Lender depending on the evolution of the base rate of the National Bank of Moldova, the inflation rate and market developments, including a change in the EUR or USD exchange rate by more than 10% compared to the exchange rate on the date of conclusion of this Contract, taking into account the rules of fairness, by notifying the Borrower by e-mail and/or SMS at least 10 (ten) days before the application of the modified interest rate.".

In the same vein, it should be mentioned that, in the "Pre-contractual information" form, which was made available to the debtor, under the heading "3. Credit costs", it is stated: "The interest rate on the credit or, if applicable, the different interest rates applicable to the credit contract: - 24.00%, per annum, fixed".

In this context, in accordance with Art. 3 of Law No. 202/2013, "the fixed interest rate related to the credit – the agreement of the parties, in the credit contract, on an interest rate related to the credit for the entire duration of the credit contract or on several interest rates related to the credit for partial terms, applying exclusively a fixed percentage established.".

Therefore, the pre-contractual information, according to which the interest rate is fixed, and the clause provided in point 6.2 letter b) of the Contract, which allows the creditor to unilaterally modify it depending on the evolution of certain economic indicators, create a discrepancy regarding the nature and mechanism for determining the interest applicable to the Contract. The consumer is presented, prior to the conclusion of the Contract, with a fixed rate, while the contractual clause allows its subsequent modification at the unilateral initiative of the creditor.

In this vein, it should be noted that the assessment of the abusive nature of the clause does not concern the adequacy of the interest rate level, as an element of the creditor's remuneration, but the manner in which the professional reserved the right to unilaterally modify an interest rate presented to the consumer as fixed.

Therefore, according to Art. 1072 para. (1) of the Civil Code, when assessing the potential abusive nature, it is analyzed whether the pre-drafted contractual clause that was not individually negotiated is considered abusive if it is proposed by the professional and significantly disadvantages the consumer, contrary to good faith.

According to Art. 1069 para. (1) of the Civil Code, "(1) A clause proposed by one of the parties is not individually negotiated if the other party was unable to influence its content, in particular because it was drafted in advance, regardless of whether it is part of standard clauses or not.", and, in accordance with para. (3) and para. (4) of the same article, if a clause was proposed as part of standard clauses by the creditor, it is presumed that it was not individually negotiated.

In assessing the imbalance created to the detriment of the consumer, the nature of the legal relationship must also be taken into account. The consumer contracts the credit, assuming the obligation of staggered repayment, and the interest rate level constitutes an essential element for determining the cost of the credit and the extent of his payment obligations. In the case of a rate presented as fixed, the consumer is entitled to rely on the stability of the percentage agreed for the period in which it is declared applicable; however, through point 6.2 letter b) of the Contract, the creditor reserves the possibility of unilaterally modifying precisely this element of the credit cost, depending on the evolution of the base rate of the National Bank of Moldova (NBM), inflation, the market and the EUR or USD exchange rate, although the interest rate was presented to the consumer, at the pre-contractual stage, as fixed.

Thus, the clause affects the predictability of the credit cost and the stability of the obligations assumed by the consumer, being incompatible with the fixed nature of the interest rate presented to him prior to the conclusion of the Contract.

According to Art. 11 of the Civil Code, “Good faith is a standard of conduct of a party, characterized by fairness, honesty, openness and taking into account the interests of the other party to the legal relationship.”.

22.8.2. At the same time, the clause provided for in point 6.2 letter b) of the Contract is to be analyzed also in light of Art. 15 para. (1) of Law No. 202/2013, which prohibits contractual clauses by which the creditor is granted the right to unilaterally modify the contractual conditions, without the conclusion of an additional act, accepted by the consumer.

In this case, point 6.2 letter b) of the Contract expressly grants the lender the right to unilaterally modify the interest rate, depending on the evolution of the NBM base rate, inflation, the market and the EUR or USD exchange rate. Therefore, the modification of the interest rate can be carried out by the mere decision of the creditor, without the prior consent of the consumer being necessary. The fact that the creditor has the obligation to inform the consumer at least 10 days before the application of the new rate does not remove the unilateral character of the modification. The notification of the consumer represents only informing the latter about the modification decided by the creditor and does not equate to the consumer's consent nor to the conclusion of an additional act.

Also, the Contract does not provide that the modification of the interest rate is conditioned by the express acceptance of the consumer and by the signing of an additional act. On the contrary, the wording “the interest rate may be unilaterally modified by the Lender” grants the creditor, through the contractual clause itself, the right to unilaterally modify an essential condition of the contract.

Therefore, point 6.2 letter b) of the Contract allows the creditor to unilaterally modify the interest rate, without the consumer's consent and without the conclusion of an additional act accepted by the latter, which contravenes the requirements of Art. 15 para. (1) of Law No. 202/2013.

This circumstance also constitutes an additional element in assessing the abusive character of the clause, since it allows the professional to unilaterally modify an essential element of the cost of the credit and creates, to the detriment of the consumer, an imbalance between the rights and obligations of the parties.

22.9. Non-compliance with the provisions established in Art. 15 para. (1) of Law No. 202/2013 in the clause contained in point 6.3. of the Contract

Point 6.3. of the Contract provides that, “Without prejudice to the provisions of point 6.2, OCN “Mogo Loans” SRL has the right to modify the Interest rate or the amount of other fees for financial services, without prior notice, if there is a justified reason, with the obligation to immediately inform the Borrower thereof and so that the Borrower has the freedom to resort, immediately on this basis, to the termination of the Contract or, as the case may be, to the early repayment of the Contractual Payments, without any additional cost for the Borrower.”.

Through its content, the clause grants the creditor the right to unilaterally modify two essential elements of the cost of the credit — the interest rate and the amount of other fees for financial services — without the prior expression of the consumer's consent and without the conclusion of an additional act, accepted by the latter. The information of the consumer occurs, according to the clause, after the modification has been made, and the latter's right to resort to the termination of the Contract or to early repayment represents a consequence of the modification already decided unilaterally by the creditor.

In this case, Art. 15 para. (1) of Law No. 202/2013 prohibits contractual clauses which grant the creditor the right to unilaterally modify the contractual conditions, without the conclusion of an additional act, accepted by the consumer. The existence of a “justified reason”, the subsequent information of the consumer or the latter's possibility to resort to the termination of the Contract or to early repayment does not remove the unilateral character of the modification and cannot substitute the consumer's consent.

22.10. Non-compliance with the provisions established in Art. 18 para. (3) letter b) of Law No. 202/2013 in the clause contained in point 7.3. of the Contract and their abusive character

In accordance with point 7.3 of the Contract, “If upon receipt of the Borrower's notification regarding the exercise of the right of withdrawal, “OCN “MOGO LOANS” SRL has already disbursed to the borrower the entire amount or a part of the credit, the Borrower is obliged, within at most 3 calendar days from sending the notification of exercise of the right of withdrawal, to return to OCN “MOGO LOANS” SRL without any unjustified delay the amounts received and the increased interest for this period.”.

According to Art. 18 para. (3) letter b) of Law No. 202/2013, in the case of exercising the right of withdrawal, the consumer is obliged to return the principal and the related interest without any unjustified delay and, in any case, no later than 30 calendar days from sending the notification. Therefore, the legal norm regulates not only the existence of the repayment obligation, but also the temporal regime of its performance, establishing both the criterion of performance without unjustified delay and a maximum time limit of 30 days.

The phrase “without any unjustified delay” cannot be interpreted as meaning that the 30-day term is devoid of legal effect. The two elements of the norm have distinct functions: the obligation to perform without unjustified delay presupposes that the consumer cannot unjustifiably postpone the return of the amounts received, while the 30-day term constitutes the maximum time limit within which the obligation must be performed as an effect of exercising the right of withdrawal.

Moreover, by setting a fixed term of 3 calendar days, the creditor substantially reduces the period provided by the legislator for the performance of the restitution obligation, replacing the legal regime, which allows performance without unjustified delay, but establishes, as a maximum limit, the term of 30 days, with a fixed contractual term that is significantly shorter.

Such an addition does not consist in the mere fact that the 3-day term is different from the 30-day term provided by law, but in whether, through a pre-established contractual clause, the creditor can restrict, to the detriment of the consumer, the temporal regime of the restitution obligation established by Art. 18 para. (3) lit. b) of Law No. 202/2013. Such a contractual restriction must be examined in light of Art. 27 para. (1) of Law No. 202/2013, which provides that consumers cannot waive the rights conferred by this law. Insofar as the temporal limit established by Art. 18 para. (3) lit. b) of Law No. 202/2013 represents a legal guarantee regarding the performance of the restitution obligation, as an effect of the exercise of the right of withdrawal, the establishment by contract of a shorter term cannot have the effect of depriving the consumer of the protection conferred by the legal norm. Therefore, the contractual clause cannot be justified merely by the fact that Art. 18 para. (3) lit. b) of Law No. 202/2013 requires restitution "without any unjustified delay", since the same legal provision expressly establishes that the restitution must not take place later than 30 calendar days from the transmission of the notification. The establishment of a contractual term of 3 days imposes on the consumer a temporal obligation more restrictive than that resulting from the legal regime, without the clause revealing the legal basis for such a derogation.

22.11. The abusive and non-transparent nature of the clause provided at point 11.2 lit. j) of the Contract regarding "essential non-performance"

Point 11.2 of the Contract establishes the situations that are considered non-performance of the contractual obligation by the borrower and that entitle the creditor to declare the termination of the Contract. Thus, lit. j) qualifies as non-performance of the contractual obligation: "j) in other situations in which there has been an essential non-performance of the contract by the Borrower".

According to point 11.2 lit. j) of the Contract, the creditor is entitled to declare termination in "other situations in which there has been an essential non-performance of the contract by the Borrower".

However, the clause does not establish the concrete circumstances, criteria or threshold of gravity on the basis of which a non-performance can be qualified as "essential". Although Art. 916 of the Civil Code establishes the criteria according to which non-performance has an essential character, the contract nevertheless does not transpose them in a manner that would allow the consumer to foresee in which concrete situations the non-performance of an obligation can lead to the termination of the contract.

Under these conditions, the consumer cannot anticipate, with sufficient clarity, the legal consequence of the non-performance of a certain obligation, namely the possibility of termination of the contract.

In particular, according to Art. 1071 para. (1) of the Civil Code, clauses not individually negotiated must be drafted and communicated in clear and intelligible language, so that the consumer can understand the extent of the obligations assumed and their legal consequences.

Therefore, the generic use of the phrase "essential non-performance", without establishing contractual criteria sufficiently clear for its determination, confers on the clause a non-transparent character, and, under the conditions of Art. 1071 para. (2) of the Civil Code, constitutes a basis for considering it abusive.

23. Regarding the violations admitted by OCN "MOGO LOANS" SRL, established in light of the provisions of Law No. 202/2013, it should be noted that these non-compliances are of a nature to attract the contraventional liability of the creditor. At the same time, according to the provisions of the Contraventional Code, the attraction of contraventional liability is conditioned by compliance with the general limitation period, set at 12 months from the date of commission of the act. Considering that more than 12 months have passed since the date of signing the Contract, the limitation period provided by law has been exceeded.

Therefore, CNPF is legally unable to order the application of contraventional sanctions in this case.

24. Based on the considerations set out above, pursuant to Art. 4 para. (21) lit. c), Art. 8 lit. t), Art. 18 para. (3), Art. 20 para. (1), para. (6) and para. (7) and Art. 22 para. (3) of Law No. 192/1998 on the National Commission of the Financial Market, Law No. 202/2013 on consumer credit contracts, Law No. 105/2003 on consumer protection, the Civil Code, 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. It is found that OCN "MOGO LOANS" SRL has failed to comply with Art. 3, Art. 5 para. (2) lit. c), Art. 10 para. (3) lit. a) and lit. g), Art. 15 para. (1) and para. (3) lit. c), Art. 18 para. (3) lit. b) and Art. 20 para. (1) of Law No. 202/2013 on consumer credit contracts.

2. The unlawful nature of the clauses in Credit Contract No. [...] dated [...], concluded between OCN "MOGO LOANS" SRL and Mr. [...], contained at:

2.1. point 5.5, in the part concerning the text "[...] with 5 (five) working days in advance, [...]";

2.2. item 6.3., which establishes that, „Without prejudice to the provisions of item 6.2, O.C.N. „Mogo Loans” SRL has the right to modify the interest rate or the amount of other fees for financial services, without prior notice, if there is a justified reason, with the obligation to immediately inform the Borrower in this regard and that the borrower has the freedom to resort to, immediately on this basis, the termination of the Contract or, as the case may be, to the early repayment of contractual payments, without any additional cost for the borrower.”;

2.3. item 7.3., according to which, „If upon receipt of the Borrower's notification regarding the exercise of the right of withdrawal, „OCN „MOGO LOANS” SRL has already disbursed to the borrower the entire amount or a part of the credit, the Borrower is obliged, within at most 3 calendar days from sending the notification of exercise of the right of withdrawal, to return to OCN „MOGO LOANS” SRL without any unjustified delay the amounts received and the increased interest for this period.”;

2.4. item 11.2 letter h), which stipulates that „third parties file claims against the Borrower, the total amount of which exceeds 20% of the credit balance”.

3. The abusive nature is established of the clauses in the Credit Agreement no. [...] dated [...], concluded between OCN „MOGO LOANS” SRL and Mr. [...], contained in:

3.1. item 4.3. of part II ,,General provisions”, according to which „The Borrower agrees to pay to O.C.N. „Mogo Loans” SRL the Credit granting commission, according to the Payment Schedule.”;

3.2. item 2 of part I ,,Special provisions”, which establishes „The credit granting commission (10% of the Credit amount, min 5 000 lei) – 10 560,00 lei”;

3.3. the text in annex no. 1, regarding „Commission for notifying the client regarding late payment or termination of the Contract - 50 lei”;

3.4. item 8.2, in the part concerning the text „[…] and regarding the Extension Fee,”, as well as the text „The extension fee shall be applied and charged to the Borrower only if the maturity date changes by more than 30 days.”;

3.5. item 8.5, in the part referring to the text „ […] the collection by OCN „Mogo Loans” SRL of the Extension Fee and [...]”;

3.6. the text in annex no. 1, in the part concerning „Commission for termination of the Contract – 5% of the Credit balance, for the Contract that was terminated at the initiative of OCN „Mogo Loans” SRL. It is offset if the Contract is concluded again.”;

3.7. the text in annex no. 1, which establishes „Commission for concluding the Contract again - 7,5% of the Credit balance, the first re-conclusion – free of charge”;

3.8. item 11.2 letter j), in the part related to the text „[...] essential non-performance of the contract by the Borrower”.

4. The illegal and abusive nature is established of the clause in the Credit Agreement no. [...] dated [...], concluded between OCN „MOGO LOANS” SRL and Mr. [...], contained in item 6.2., according to which „The interest rate may be modified: [...] b) unilaterally by the lender, depending on the evolution of the NBM base rate, the inflation rate and market developments, including the modification of the EUR or USD exchange rate by more than 10% compared to the exchange rate on the date of conclusion of this Contract, taking into account the rules of equity, notifying the Borrower by e-mail and/or SMS at least 10 (ten) days before the application of the modified interest rate.”.

5. A legal action is filed in court, in order to request the establishment of the nullity of the illegal clauses, indicated in point 2, of the abusive ones, indicated in point 3 and of the illegal and abusive ones, indicated in point 4.

6. Control over the execution of points 2, 3 and 4 is assigned to the Legal Department.

7. This Decision may be contested by submitting a preliminary request to the CNPF address (MD-2012, mun. Chișinău, bd. Ștefan cel Mare și Sfânt, nr. 77), within 30 days from the date of communication.

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

Dumitru BUDIANSCHI,
PRESIDENT