Decision No. 61/2 of 24 December 2025 on the Preliminary Application Submitted by OCN OK CREDIT SRL Against CNPF Decision No. 51/1

REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA
NATIONAL FINANCIAL MARKET COMMISSION
1
DECISION
24 December 2025 No. 61/2
Regarding the Preliminary Application submitted by OCN “OK CREDIT” SRL against the Decision of the National Financial Market Commission No. 51/1 dated 28.10.2025 regarding the petition registered with the National Financial Market Commission under No. 6214 dated 19.08.2025, in relation to OCN “OK CREDIT” SRL

On 01.12.2025, within the framework of the National Financial Market Commission (CNPF/authority), the Preliminary Application submitted by OCN “OK CREDIT” SRL (the Company) was registered (under No. 8644), requesting the admission of the Preliminary Application and the annulment of CNPF Decision No. 51/1 of 28 October 2025 and specifically points 1 – 4 and item 6 as illegal (Preliminary Application).

In this case, on 19.08.2025, within the CNPF, the petition of Mr. [...] (consumer) was registered (under No. 6214), requesting the intervention of the CNPF regarding the legal relationship, formed on the basis of Loan Agreement No. [...] dated
17.06.2024 (Agreement).

Subsequently, following investigations conducted by the authority, based on materials presented by the parties, on 28.10.2025, Decision No. 51/1 dated 28.10.2025 was issued regarding the petition registered at the National Financial Market Commission under No. 6214 on 19.08.2025, in relation to OCN “OK CREDIT” SRL. (Decision No. 51/1/2025)

Thus, not agreeing with Decision No. 51/1/2025, the Company filed a Preliminary Application.

On the subject matter, it should be noted that, in order to ensure a comprehensive, objective, and transparent investigation, which would provide the real possibility to analyze the Company’s claim, it is communicated to it that the examination of the factual and legal circumstances relevant to the case, in preliminary order, will be carried out by distinguished officials within the CNPF.

In law, Article 19 of the Administrative Code provides that “The Preliminary Application is the institution that offers a pre-litigation path for the resolution of 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 Application may be directed towards:
a) the annulment in whole or in part of an illegal or null individual administrative act; [...]”.

2

Furthermore, under the conditions of Article 166 of the Administrative Code, “The Preliminary Application can only be submitted if the person claims rights violated by the issuance or refusal to issue 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 application admissible and well-founded, the issuing public authority annuls the contested individual administrative act in whole or in part or issues the requested individual administrative act. [...] (3) The issuing public authority resolves the preliminary application within 15 calendar days. The provisions of Article 60 para.(2) – (5) apply correspondingly.”.

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

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

Following the examination of the Preliminary Application, it should be noted that the Company contests, in principal, the finding of violation of Article 15 para. (7) lit. a) of Law No. 202/2013 regarding consumer credit contracts (Law No. 202/2013), arguing that, in the case of the Agreement, the provisions of Article 15 para. (7) lit. b) would apply, since the credit in the amount of 150,000.00 lei is intended for the construction/renovation of a housing unit guaranteed by real estate, and the cap of 0.04 percent per day would not be applicable.

In the context of the statements made by the creditor, it should be noted that, in accordance with Article 15 para. (7) lit. a) and lit. b) of Law No. 202/2013, “(7) It is prohibited: a) applying the annual credit interest rate specified in the credit contract if it exceeds 50%, and all other payments related (fees, taxes, penalties, late interest, and any other type of payment), excluding interest, for one day of credit exceed 0.04% of the total value of the credit for the term of actual use of the credit by the consumer; b) setting the total cost of the credit (which includes interest, fees, taxes, penalties, late interest, and any other type of payment) higher than the disbursed value according to the respective contract (or the entry value of the good in the financial leasing contract), credit which is not intended for the purchase, construction, or renovation (modernization) of a housing unit guaranteed by real estate to ensure the payment obligation of the respective credit.”. From this norm, it is clear that the text “credit which is not intended for the purchase, construction, or renovation of a housing unit” serves exclusively the hypothesis regulated under Article 15 para. (7) lit. b).

Consequently, lit. a) and lit. b) of para. (7) establish two distinct prohibitions, but not a cumulative regime; the cap of 0.04 percent per day, provided in lit. a), remains applicable to all consumer credit contracts, including those intended for the construction or renovation of a housing unit guaranteed by real estate.

At the same time, it should be recorded that the Company’s reasoning, according to which all other payments related to the contract (the loan origination fee and the monthly administration fee) do not exceed the limit allowed by Law in the amount of 0.04% daily, effectively being in the amount of 0.039% daily, on the basis of a calculation by which the 5 percent origination fee is divided by 36 months and subsequently, converted into a daily percentage, is erroneous and cannot be applied to the case.

Therefore, Article 15 para. (7) lit. a) of Law No. 202/2013 does not establish a limit of an arithmetic mean of related payments over the entire duration of the credit, but establishes a

3

maximum cap of all payments related to the contract (fees, taxes, penalties, late interest, and any other type of payment, excluding interest), for one day of credit, related to the total value of the credit and which were actually applied.

In this case, the 5 percent origination fee on the disbursed amount is calculated and collected as a single payment, due and fully collected on 17.06.2024, according to the repayment schedule, related to the Agreement, such that, on the day of its collection, the ratio between “other payments” and the total value of the credit far exceeds the cap of 0.04 percent per day.

Consequently, the calculation method invoked by OCN “OK CREDIT” SRL, by which the origination fee is conventionally allocated over the entire duration of the credit, so as to result in a daily percentage of 0.039 percent, cannot remove the finding of violation of the provisions of Article 15 para. (7) lit. a) of Law No. 202/2013 and is not of a nature to overturn the conclusions retained in Decision No. 51/1/2025.

Subsequently, regarding the Company’s arguments concerning the Settlement Transaction dated 05.08.2025 (Transaction), it should be specified that the contractual relationships involved are consumer credit relationships, governed, by special title, by the provisions of Law No. 202/2013.

Therefore, the applicable legal remedy is not the conventional reduction, through the Transaction, of the “total cost of the loan” to a certain amount (in this case – 70
225.65 lei), but the direct application of Article 15 para. (9) or, as applicable, para. (91)
of Law No. 202/2013, according to which the creditor has the right to request only the return of the initial disbursed amount, without claiming other payments provided in the contract, and the supervisory authority has the right to request the return of all payments collected in excess of the principal.

In this regard, once the exceeding of the cap provided in Article 15 para. (7) of Law No. 202/2013 has been established, the legislator restricts, imperatively, the creditor’s rights to the exclusive collection of the initial disbursed amount, and a subsequent conventional understanding between the parties cannot substitute nor limit the remedial regime, expressly provided by Article 15 para. (9) and Article (91) (currently Article 151 para. (4) and para. (5)).

Under these conditions, the clauses of the Transaction, which maintain financial obligations on the consumer exceeding the level provided by the application of these norms, cannot be opposed to the CNPF, and the Company’s arguments, based on the existence of the Transaction, should be rejected as unfounded.

From this perspective, it should be pointed out that the arguments invoked by OCN “OK CREDIT” SRL are not of a nature to invalidate the findings and prescriptions established by Decision No. 51/1/2025, which is why the Preliminary Application should be rejected as unfounded.

Based on the considerations recorded above, on the basis of Article 18 para. (3), Article 20 para. (1), para. (6) and para. (7), Article 22 para. (3) and Article 25 para. (2) of Law No. 192/1998 regarding the National Financial Market Commission, Law No. 202/2013 regarding consumer credit contracts, Article 17, Article 19, Article 162 para. (1) and para. (3) lit. a), Article 166, Article 167 para. (3) and Article 169 of the Administrative Code and item 16 and item 19 of the Regulation regarding the organization and functioning of the National Financial Market Commission (CNPF Decision No. 57/11/2022),

4

The National Financial Market Commission DECIDES:

1. The Preliminary Application, submitted by OCN “OK CREDIT” SRL,
   against the Decision of the National Financial Market Commission No. 51/1 dated
   28.10.2025 regarding the petition registered at the National Financial Market
   Commission under No. 6214 on 19.08.2025, in relation to OCN “OK CREDIT” SRL (registered at CNPF under No. 8644 on 01.12.2025), is rejected.
2. This Decision may be contested with an administrative lawsuit,
   filed with the Chișinău Court, Râșcani branch (MD-2068, Chișinău city, Kiev 3 street), within 30 days from the date of its notification.
3. This Decision enters into force on the date of adoption, is communicated to the recipient
   in accordance with the legislation, and is published on the official website of the CNPF (www.cnpf.md).

Adrian GHEORGHIȚĂ,
VICE-PRESIDENT