Decision on the Complaint of 08.06.2026 Submitted by Ms [...]

REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA
NATIONAL FINANCIAL MARKET COMMISSION
77 Stefan cel Mare si Sfant Blvd, Chisinau, MD 2012, tel: (373 22) 859 401, www.cnpf.md, e-mail: office@cnpf.md DECISION 23 June 2026 No. 30/1 Regarding the Complaint dated 08.06.2026, submitted by Ms [...]

On 10.06.2026, within the framework of the National Financial Market Commission (CNPF/supervisory authority), the Complaint dated 08.06.2026, submitted by Ms [...] (petitioner/participant), was registered (No. 4700), concerning the response provided via CNPF letter No. 03-5/2099 dated 28.05.2026 (Prior Request).

In this case, in order to ensure a comprehensive, objective, and transparent investigation that offers the real possibility of analyzing the petitioner's claims, the petitioner is hereby informed that the examination of the factual and legal circumstances relevant to the case, as a preliminary step, is being conducted by distinguished officers within the supervisory authority.

In fact, on 18.05.2026 and additionally on 25.05.2026, within the CNPF, letters No. 3795 and No. 4047 respectively, dated 13.05.2026 and 20.05.2026, were registered, concerning alleged illegalities committed regarding the shares held by the petitioner in SA "CREDO-CARTEA" (the Company).

Consequently, that administrative procedure was concluded by the issuance of CNPF letter No. 03-5/2099 dated 28.05.2026 (the Contested Letter), communicated to the petitioner in accordance with the legislation.

Not being in agreement with the response provided by the CNPF, the petitioner submitted the Complaint dated 08.06.2026, with certain requests, including conducting an inspection within the Company, to examine the alleged falsifications and thefts committed by the Company regarding the shares belonging to the petitioner.

In this context, it should be noted that although the document bears the title of Complaint, it actually represents a Prior Request, containing the disagreement expressed regarding CNPF letter No. 03-5/2099 dated 28.05.2026.

Accordingly, the Complaint is examined within the framework of the preliminary procedure, in the order provided by Articles 163 – 169 of the Administrative Code.

Given the above, pursuant to Article 167 paragraph (3) of the Administrative Code, the deadline for resolving the prior request is 15 calendar days, calculated from 10.06.2026.

Analyzing the arguments presented in the Prior Request, in light of the applicable legal provisions, 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 Prior Request is the institution that offers a pre-litigation path for resolving administrative disputes.", and Article 162 paragraphs (1) and (3) of the same law stipulate that "(1) The preliminary procedure aims to verify the legality of individual administrative acts. [...] (3) The Prior Request may be directed towards:
   a) the annulment in whole or in part of an illegal or null individual administrative act; b) the issuance of an individual administrative act."

2. In accordance with Article 20 of the Administrative Code, "If a legitimate right or a freedom established by law is violated through an administrative activity, this right may be claimed through an action in administrative litigation, [...]", and pursuant to Article 17, "A violated right is any right or freedom established by law to which an administrative activity causes harm."

3. Under the conditions of Article 166 of the Administrative Code, "The Prior Request may be submitted only if the person claims the rights violated by the issuance or refusal to issue an individual administrative act.", and in accordance with Article 167 paragraphs (1) and (3) of the same law, "(1) If the public authority considers the prior request to be admissible and well-founded, it annuls in whole or in part the contested individual administrative act or issues the requested individual administrative act. [...] (3) The public authority issuing the decision resolves the prior request within 15 calendar days. The provisions of Article 60 paragraphs (2)–(5) apply correspondingly."

4. In this case, Article 78 paragraph (1) of the Administrative Code establishes that "(1) The administrative procedure is concluded by performing an administrative operation or by issuing an individual administrative act, respectively, concluding an administrative contract."

5. At the same time, pursuant to Article 15 of the Administrative Code, administrative operations are defined as "[...] manifestations of will or activities of public authorities that do not themselves produce legal effects. Administrative operations can only be contested simultaneously with the individual administrative act, with the exception of executive administrative operations or those directed against a third party." Thus, it is essential to the nature of administrative operations that they do not produce legal effects.

6. Specifically, the lack of legal effects of administrative operations implies the lack of coercive character and the fact that they do not create, modify, or extinguish a legal relationship or the rights and obligations of the parties to the legal relationship; rather, in the case of concluding administrative procedures, administrative operations, similar to the one in question, constitute only a factual exposition.

7. At the same time, from the systematic interpretation of Articles 17, 20, 166, and 207 of the Administrative Code, it results that the admissibility of a prior request is determined by the claim of a violated right through administrative activity.

8. Thus, from the perspective of its legal nature, the Contested Letter presents the characteristics of an administrative operation, within the meaning of Article 15 of the Administrative Code, because it does not produce direct legal effects on the rights and obligations of the participant.

9. However, given the content of the allegations formulated by the participant and arising from the need to ensure an effective, transparent, and exhaustive examination, the supervisory authority will proceed to verify the arguments invoked in the Prior Request, including regarding the correctness of the assessments exposed in the Contested Letter.

10. Primarily, Ms [...] considers that, through the Contested Letter, a formal response was provided, based on false materials, which does not correspond to the petitioner's requests.

11. Specifically, the participant claims to be the holder of a package of 910 shares of SA "CREDO-CARTEA", acquired in 1995, in exchange for property vouchers attributed to her as an employee of the Company, also stating that the package represents 78.9% of the total shares issued by the Company.

12. Additionally, Ms [...] claims that the 910 shares should have been held in a single account, not in two distinct accounts. Furthermore, the participant claims that she did not acquire any shares in 1997, considering that the 17 transfer dispositions registered by "REGISTRU IND" SRL, under which she acquired 395 shares of SA "CREDO-CARTEA", were falsified.

13. In this context, it is necessary to highlight that Ms [...] has addressed the CNPF on multiple occasions with petitions having the same factual and legal substrate, essentially requesting the recognition of rights over the same package of shares and the intervention of the supervisory authority to remedy the claimed situation. Regarding these aspects, the CNPF has expressed itself on multiple occasions through responses communicated to the petitioner, with the position remaining unchanged.

14. From the additional investigation of the relevant circumstances of the case, it results that Ms [...] previously addressed the court with an action against SA "CREDO-CARTEA", requesting the recognition of the right of ownership over a package of 910 shares of the Company, which she claims represents 78.9% of its share capital.

15. Through the Decision of the Edinet Court, seat in Briceni, dated 08.11.2017, pronounced in case No. 28-2-4701-04072017 (https://jed.instante.justice.md/pigd_integration/pdf/NmNhNGFjMjQtMTIzOC1lODExLTgwZDctMDA1MDU2OGI0ZDVi), the court of first instance rejected, as unfounded, the claim for summons, holding that the claims of Ms [...] were not proven by relevant and conclusive evidence.

16. The decision of the court of first instance was appealed, but, through the Decision of the Bălți Court of Appeal dated 24.05.2018 (https://cab.instante.justice.md/ro/pigd_integration/pdf/MWMxMjg0MWMtNTA4MC1lODExLTgwZDctMDA1MDU2OGI0ZDVi), the appeal was rejected, upholding the solution of the first instance. In this regard, the Bălți Court of Appeal found that the first instance correctly established the relevant circumstances of the case, appropriately assessed the evidence administered, and correctly applied the substantive legal norms incident to the litigious legal relationship.

17. Subsequently, through the Ruling of the Supreme Court of Justice dated 07.11.2018 (https://jurisprudenta.csj.md/search_col_civil.php?id=47474), the appeal declared by Ms [...] was declared inadmissible.

18. Under these conditions, the aspects regarding the alleged ownership right of Ms [...] over the shares of SA "CREDO-CARTEA" benefited from a complete judicial examination, being finally resolved by judicial acts that enjoy the authority of res judicata.

19. Complementarily, it is necessary to note that the subject invoked by the participant was examined not only by the courts but also by the criminal investigation body, seized on multiple occasions regarding the same circumstances, which conducted complex and multi-faceted verifications on the claimed aspects and adopted the corresponding procedural solutions.

20. On the subject, the CNPF attests that the arguments and documents invoked in the Prior Request coincide entirely with those that constituted the object of examination by the courts and the criminal investigation body, with irrevocable judicial acts issued in this sense.

21. Therefore, admitting a solution contrary to those established by irrevocable judicial decisions would equate to re-evaluating circumstances already examined judicially, exceeding the limits of the competence of an administrative authority.

22. In this context, final and irrevocable judicial decisions benefit from the authority of res judicata, a fundamental principle of the security of legal relationships, which excludes the possibility of successive re-examination of a legal situation already settled by an irrevocable judicial decision.

23. Moreover, the CNPF is not competent to re-evaluate evidence administered in a judicial process, to overturn the findings of the courts, or to adopt a solution contrary to those established by final and irrevocable judicial acts. Such an approach would equate to exercising jurisdictional attributes, which belong exclusively to the courts.

24. Consequently, the CNPF considers that the arguments invoked in the Prior Request do not contain new elements of fact or law that would justify reconsidering the position previously communicated to the participant and removing the obligatory effects of the irrevocable judicial decisions pronounced in the case.

25. Therefore, the Prior Request should be rejected as unfounded.

Based on the considerations exposed above, pursuant to 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 Financial Market Commission, Articles 17, 19, 162 paragraph (1), 166, 167 paragraph (3), 169 paragraphs (2) and (3) of the Administrative Code, and points 16 and 19 of 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 Complaint dated 08.06.2026, submitted by Ms [...] (registered at the CNPF with No. 4700 on 10.06.2026), is rejected.

2. This Decision may be contested with an action in administrative litigation, submitted to the Chisinau Court, Rascani seat (MD-2068, Chisinau, Kiev 3 St), 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 the CNPF (www.cnpf.md).

Vladimir RUSNAC,
VICE-PRESIDENT