Decision No. 62/1 of 30 December 2025 regarding the preliminary request by BC VICTORIABANK SA to partially annul CNPF Decision No. 54/2 of 11 November 2025 — NCFM — MD

REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA
NATIONAL COMMISSION OF THE FINANCIAL MARKET
1
DECISION
30 December 2025 No. 62/1
Regarding the preliminary request submitted by BC "VICTORIABANK" SA, concerning the partial annulment of Decision No. 54/2 of the National Commission of the Financial Market dated 11.11.2025 regarding the results of the surprise inspection carried out within certain currency exchange offices

On 11.12.2025, within the National Commission of the Financial Market (CNPF/authority), the Preliminary Request, submitted by BC "VICTORIABANK" SA (bank/participant), was registered under No. 9988, in which it is requested: "1. Revision of the findings inserted in Decision No. 54/2 of 11.11.2025 at points 12 and 13; 2. Exclusion from the decision of the findings regarding the use by BC "Victoriabank" SA of misleading practices, of the type of misleading omission, which may mislead the average consumer regarding the value of the applied exchange rate and may induce them to take a transaction decision that they would not have taken otherwise." (Preliminary Request).

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 bank is communicated 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 this instance, the CNPF conducted a surprise inspection (inspection), ordered by Decision No. 45/1 dated 16.09.2025 regarding the conduct of the inspection within certain currency exchange offices (Decision No. 45/1/2025), within 48 entities, including within BC "VICTORIABANK" SA. The inspection aimed to verify the compliance of currency exchange offices with the provisions of Article 13 of Law No. 105/2003 on consumer protection (Law No. 105/2003) regarding the information displayed on the advertising panel and/or on the screen of the currency exchange machine.

To carry out the field inspection, members of the inspection team went to the currency exchange office of BC "VICTORIABANK" SA – Agency No. 2 of Branch No. 12, located in Chișinău city, Moscow Boulevard, No. 16, on 22.09.2025.

In accordance with point 26, subpoint 1) and subpoint 4) of the Regulation on the administrative inspection procedure (CNPF Decision No. 60/10/2023, hereinafter – Regulation No. 60/10/2023), on the day of the inspection, the participant was communicated Decision No. 45/1/2025 and information about the rights and obligations incumbent upon them, according to Regulation No. 60/10/2023.

2
Consequently, it should be mentioned that the established violations were recorded in the Provisional Inspection Act dated 10.10.2025 regarding the results of the inspection carried out within certain currency exchange offices concerning the verification of compliance with the provisions of Article 13 of Law No. 105/2003 on consumer protection, regarding the information displayed on the advertising panel and/or on the screen of the currency exchange machine (Provisional Inspection Act), which was sent to the participant via email on the same day, with a deadline granted until 17.10.2025 for submitting objections and comments on the Provisional Inspection Act.

Additionally, on 17.10.2025, BC "VICTORIABANK" SA sent a letter (registered at CNPF under No. 7574) to the email address office@cnpf.md regarding objections to the Provisional Inspection Act dated 10.10.2025, accompanied by proof of remedying the identified discrepancy.

Thus, under point 65 of Regulation No. 60/10/2023, the inspection team prepared the Divergence Table, finalizing on 24.10.2025 the Act regarding the results of the inspection carried out within certain currency exchange offices concerning the verification of compliance with the provisions of Article 13 of Law No. 105/2003 on consumer protection, regarding the information displayed on the advertising panel and/or on the screen of the currency exchange machine (Act regarding the results of the inspection).

Similarly, under Article 94 of the Administrative Code and point 68 of Regulation No. 60/10/2023, to ensure compliance with the right to be heard before issuing an unfavorable decision, BC "VICTORIABANK" SA, via CNPF letter No. 04-5/4238 dated 24.10.2025, was informed of the right to be heard on 30.10.2025, at 10:00, regarding the facts and circumstances established during the inspection.

Subsequently, during the hearing, the representative of BC "VICTORIABANK" SA supported the arguments invoked in the objections to the Provisional Inspection Act, a fact recorded in the Hearing Record of the participant in the administrative procedure dated 30.10.2025.

In the context of what is stated in the Inspection Act, as well as what was invoked by the participant in the objections to the Provisional Inspection Act, Decision No. 54/2/2025 regarding the results of the surprise inspection carried out within certain currency exchange offices (Decision No. 54/2/2025/Contested Decision) was adopted, by which the Inspection Act was approved.

At the same time, it was established that "the use by B.C. "VICTORIABANK" S.A., Agency No. 2 of Branch No. 12, of misleading commercial practices, of the type of misleading omission, as provided for in Article 13 paragraphs (1) and (8) of Law No. 105/2003 on consumer protection, characterized by the omission of separating the integer part from the decimal signs on the advertising panel, pertaining to the exchange rate for RON currency, which may mislead the average consumer regarding the value of the applied exchange rate and may induce them to take a transaction decision that they would not have taken otherwise," and such incorrect commercial practices were prohibited.

The Contested Decision was delivered to the bank via CNPF letter No. 04-11/4482 dated 14.11.2025.

Disagreeing with the CNPF findings, the bank submitted a Preliminary Request, in which it requests: "Revision of the findings inserted in Decision No. 54/2 of 11.11.2025 at points 12 and 13; Exclusion from the decision of the findings regarding the use by BC "Victoriabank" SA of misleading practices, of the type of misleading omission, which may mislead the average consumer regarding the value of the applied exchange rate and may induce them to take a transaction decision that they would not have taken otherwise."

3
In law, in accordance with Article 20 of the Administrative Code, "If a legitimate right or a freedom established by law is violated by an administrative activity, this right may be claimed through an administrative lawsuit, [...]", and according to Article 17, "A violated right is any right or freedom established by law to which/which is affected by administrative activity."

Furthermore, according to Article 19 of the Administrative Code, "The Preliminary Request is the institution that offers a pre-litigation path for resolving administrative disputes.", and, in accordance with the provisions of Article 162 paragraphs (1) and (3) of the same law, "(1) The preliminary procedure aims to verify the legality of individual administrative acts. [...] (3) The Preliminary Request may be directed towards: a) the total or partial annulment of an illegal or null individual administrative act; b) the issuance of an individual administrative act."

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

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

Contrary to what was invoked by BC "VICTORIABANK" SA, it should be mentioned that, as a result of examining the materials accumulated in the field, pertaining to the advertising panel, it was established that, for the buying and selling exchange rates of foreign currencies, the separation of decimal signs from the integer was performed by a dot.

However, it was noted that, for RON currency (Romanian leu), the buying and selling rates were displayed without any separation between the integer and decimal signs, in the format "380" for buying and ".391" for selling.

At the same time, at the counter of the respective currency exchange office, in Directive No. CASH2/250922/0822/20250922 dated 22.09.2025 regarding exchange rates for the date 22.09.2025, at 08:22 (Directive No. CASH2/250922/0822/20250922 dated 22.09.2025), for RON currency, the buying rate was "3.80", and the selling rate – "3.91".

With reference to the qualification of the actions of BC "VICTORIABANK" SA as contrary to professional diligence, it should be noted that, according to Article 1 of Law No. 105/2003, professional diligence represents "a level of specialized competence and consideration that the trader can reasonably exercise towards consumers, in accordance with correct commercial practice and/or with the general principle of good faith in the field of activity of the trader;".

In the same sense, Article 10 paragraph (1) of the Civil Code provides that "(1) Natural and legal persons participating in civil legal relations must exercise their rights and fulfill their obligations in good faith, in accordance with the law, the contract, public order, and good morals. Good faith is presumed until proven otherwise."

Furthermore, according to point 8 of the Regulation on the activity of currency exchange offices (Decision of the Executive Committee of the National Bank of Moldova No. 335/2016, hereinafter – Regulation No. 335/2016), "8. On the advertising panel, the separation of decimal signs from the integer is performed by a distinct space or by a comma or dot. […]".

Therefore, in the authority's view, by displaying the exchange rate for RON currency on the advertising panel without separation by a dot, comma, or distinct space, BC "VICTORIABANK" SA did not respect the obligation of professional diligence.

In this case, the lack of intent, invoked by the bank, contrary to the CNPF findings, is unfounded, as professional diligence does not imply the intent of the participant or potential damages vis-à-vis consumers.

Moreover, BC "VICTORIABANK" SA itself admits that "The lack of a decimal separator (dot or comma) on the electronic panel represents an error admitted in the display system [...]".

Additionally, it should be specified that the notion of "formal non-compliance," used by the bank, is not regulated, and the lack of major impact does not exempt it from the obligation to demonstrate professional diligence by strictly complying with imperative norms, in this case, point 8 of Regulation No. 335/2016, as professional diligence requires anticipating any impact on the consumer, regardless of its magnitude.

4
3. With reference to the actions of BC "VICTORIABANK" SA that distort or are likely to distort the economic behavior of the consumer, it was established that the average consumer, in the situation of having to make a transaction decision, in the absence of clear delimitation, may incorrectly understand that, for RON currency, the exchange rate would be 380 MDL for 1 RON for buying and 391 MDL for 1 RON for selling, but not 3.80 MDL, and respectively, 3.91 MDL for 1 RON, as established by Directive No. CASH2/250922/0822/20250922 dated 22.09.2025.

This confusion is reinforced by the fact that, for all other foreign currencies on the advertising panel, exchange rates are displayed with delimitation by a dot between the integer and decimals, with the exception only of RON currency. Such an inconsistency in display can be perceived by the average consumer as a common practice, creating an appearance of normality and thus inducing them to incorrectly assess the real value of the rate. Under such circumstances, there is a risk that they may take a transaction decision based on a misinterpretation, being determined by an ambiguous display method.

Therefore, it is established that the cumulative conditions provided for in Article 13 paragraph (2) letters a) and b) of Law No. 105/2003 are met, inasmuch as BC "VICTORIABANK" SA did not respect the obligation of professional diligence, through the inappropriate presentation of information regarding the exchange rate for RON currency, and the display method was of a nature to mislead the average consumer and to essentially influence their economic decision.

In this case, the bank's allegations concerning "consumers accustomed to currency transactions" should be rejected, as the legal norm operates with the category of average consumers.

With reference to the criterion mentioned, it should be noted that the norm at Article 13 paragraph (2) letter b) of Law No. 105/2003 does not imply the existence of complaints or claims from consumers, as invoked by the participant, but only the capacity of such an action to be likely to distort the consumer's behavior.

Furthermore, the finding in question does not concern "other materials and documents available to the consumer (the directive displayed at the counter, the exchange receipt, information on the screen of the currency exchange machine)", as the content of the enumerated acts exceeds the object of the surprise inspection.

With reference to the qualification of the actions of BC "VICTORIABANK" SA as misleading omission, it should be noted that, in accordance with Article 13 paragraphs (5) and (8) of Law No. 105/2003, "(5) Misleading commercial practices may be misleading actions or misleading omissions. (8) A commercial practice is considered to be a misleading omission if, in the context of the factual situation and taking into account all characteristics and circumstances, as well as the spatial and temporal limits imposed by the communication means used to transmit the information, this practice omits essential information necessary for the average consumer, taking into account the context, for making an informed transaction decision and, therefore, determines or is likely to determine the average consumer to take a transaction decision that they would not have taken otherwise."

In this instance, BC "VICTORIABANK" SA omitted to separate the integer part from the decimal signs on the advertising panel, pertaining to the exchange rate for RON currency, a fact that constitutes a lack of essential information for the consumer. The absence of such delimitation, which contradicts applicable legal regulations and the display practice used for other foreign currencies, places the consumer in a situation of uncertainty and interpretability regarding the real value of the applied rate.

Under these conditions, the average consumer is exposed to the risk of making an erroneous transaction decision, based on a false perception of the rate, a perception created exclusively by the display method practiced by the bank.

Therefore, the established actions are qualified as misleading commercial practices of the type of misleading omission, likely to mislead the average consumer and to essentially distort their economic behavior.

Moreover, in the preliminary request, the bank operates with vague and uncertain notions, attempting to evade the CNPF findings by insinuating that "The lack of a separator between the integer and decimal does not equate to a lack of information, but only to a visual presentation feature, which did not affect the essential clarity of the message and did not lead to misinterpretations or damages for consumers."

Contrary to this, the lack of a separator between the decimal signs and the integer on the advertising panel represents a violation of point 8 of Regulation No. 335/2016.

In this case, the finding of misleading omission does not concern the exchange rate value, per se, but only the manner of its presentation on the advertising panel. Thus, the dissonance between the display practice used for other foreign currencies, using a comma, and the display method of RON currency, with the absence of such delimitation, not only contradicts the cited provision but also places the consumer in a situation of uncertainty and interpretability regarding the real value of the applied rate, which may determine the average consumer to take a transaction decision that they would not have taken otherwise.

Regarding the preliminary procedure, it should be noted that, by the Vice-President of CNPF Directive No. 1240 dated 22.12.2025 regarding the extension of the general term of the preliminary procedure, initiated by the Preliminary Request submitted by BC "VICTORIABANK" SA, concerning the partial annulment of Decision No. 54/2 of the National Commission of the Financial Market dated 11.11.2025 regarding the results of the surprise inspection carried out within certain currency exchange offices, the general term of the preliminary procedure was extended until 10.01.2026. This Directive was notified to the creditor via CNPF letter No. 06-5/4939 dated 22.12.2025, sent to the email address office@vb.md.

Additionally, via the same letter, in accordance with the provisions of Article 94 of the Administrative Code, BC "VICTORIABANK" SA was informed about the exercise of the right to be heard, regarding the facts and circumstances relevant to the act to be adopted. Accordingly, the bank was informed that the hearing was to be carried out in writing, being offered the right to submit, to the address of CNPF, an opinion, until 29.12.2025 inclusive.

Consequently, BC "VICTORIABANK" SA, via the letter registered at CNPF under No. 10393 on 29.12.2025, primarily supported the arguments invoked in the Preliminary Request, indicating that "the actions of the Bank retained during the inspection carried out by CNPF do not represent a violation of the provisions of Law 105/2003 on consumer protection, for which reason the preliminary request was submitted."

Supplementarily, contrary to the bank's statement that "the hearing was to be carried out with the presence of the parties, to elucidate other aspects or important circumstances that would require additional explanations from our side," the provisions of Article 94 paragraph (2) of the Administrative Code are invoked, which enshrines the right of authorities to opt between carrying out hearings in verbal or written form. Thus, the bank's allegations, pertaining to the discretionary right of the authority regarding the manner of carrying out hearings, cannot be retained, as the manner of conducting them is established by the authority, taking into account the principle of efficiency under the conditions of the multitude of available communication means.

From the considerations recorded above, under Article 18 paragraph (3), Article 20 paragraphs (1), (6), and (7), Article 22 paragraph (3), and Article 25 paragraph (2) of Law No. 192/1998 on the National Commission of the Financial Market, Law No. 105/2003 on consumer protection, Article 17, Article 19, Article 162 paragraphs (1) and (3) letter a), Article 164 paragraphs (1) and (2) letter b), Article 166, Article 167 paragraphs (1) and (3), and Article 169 of the Administrative Code, point 16 and point 19 of 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:

The Preliminary Request, submitted by BC "VICTORIABANK" SA concerning the partial annulment of Decision No. 54/2/2025 of the National Commission of the Financial Market regarding the results of the surprise inspection carried out within certain currency exchange offices (registered at CNPF under No. 9988 on 11.12.2025) is rejected.
This Decision may be contested with an administrative lawsuit, submitted to the Chișinău Court, Râșcani seat (MD-2068, Chișinău city, Kiev Street 3), within 30 days from the date of its communication.
This Decision enters into force on the date of adoption and is communicated to the recipient in accordance with the legislation.

Adrian GHEORGHIȚĂ,
VICE-PRESIDENT