Decision on the petition registered with the National Financial Market Commission No. 4990 dated 18.06.2026 regarding CASH&GO SRL

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 September 8, 2026 No. 45/6 On the petition registered with the National Financial Market Commission No. 4990 dated 18.06.2026, regarding "CASH&GO" SRL

On 18.06.2026, within the framework of the National Financial Market Commission (CNPF), the petition [...] (debtor/petitioner), submitted by its representative, [...], was registered (No. 4990), in which the intervention of the CNPF is requested regarding the legal relationship mentioned below.

I. Factual Circumstances

1. From the content of the petition, it is established that the legal relationship between "CASH&GO" SRL (creditor/professional) and the debtor was established on the basis of the Non-bank Credit Contract No. [...] dated [...] (Contract).
2. The credit granting conditions, which result from the Contract, are as follows:
   2.1. total credit value: 7,000.00 MDL;
   2.2. interest for credit usage: 2 percent per day or 730 percent annually;
   2.3. effective annual interest rate: 730 percent;
   2.4. total payable amount: 9,800.00 MDL;
   2.5. term for granting the non-bank credit: 20 days.
3. In this context, it should be noted that, at the time of concluding the Contract, "CASH&GO" SRL was registered in the Register of authorized non-bank credit organizations, conducting non-bank credit activity.

II. Procedural Circumstances
4. By the Order of the CNPF President No. 411 dated 24.06.2026 regarding the ex officio attraction of "CASH&GO" SRL into the administrative procedure, initiated by the petition submitted by [...], representative [...], and the suspension of the administrative procedure, "CASH&GO" SRL was attracted into the procedure, and was requested, by CNPF letter No. 05-5/2630 dated 25.06.2026, to present the relevant explanations, related to the circumstances invoked in the petition, a copy of the Credit File, as well as a copy of other relevant justificatory documents by 08.07.2026 inclusive.
5. In this case, "CASH&GO" SRL did not present the requested explanations and documents.
6. Additionally, taking into account the imperative of conducting complete investigations, which implies time for the meticulous examination of presented evidence and the formation of objective and motivated conclusions, by the Order of the CNPF President No. 548 dated 31.07.2026 regarding the extension of the general term of the administrative procedure, initiated by the petition submitted by [...], representative [...], the general term of the administrative procedure was extended until 16.08.2026.

2
7. Subsequently, by the Order of the CNPF President No. 600 dated 11.08.2026 regarding the suspension of the administrative procedure, initiated by the petition submitted by [...], representative [...], the administrative procedure was suspended until 21.08.2026 inclusive, and it was requested, by CNPF letter No. 05-5/3504 dated 12.08.2026, that "CASH&GO" SRL present explanations for the purpose of a hearing.
8. In this context, to date, "CASH&GO" SRL has not presented certain explanations or documents.
9. Subsidiarily, given the insufficient nature of the information held by the CNPF, for the purpose of ensuring an exhaustive investigation of the factual circumstances, by the Order of the CNPF President No. 696 dated 25.08.2026 regarding the suspension of the administrative procedure, initiated by the petition [...], submitted by representative [...], the administrative procedure was suspended until 08.09.2026 inclusive, and it was requested, by letter No. 05-5/3883 dated 26.08.2026, that the petitioner present additional documents.
10. Consequently, on 03.09.2026, the representative of the petitioner presented explanations (registered at CNPF with No. 7803).

III. Legal Circumstances
11. In accordance with Art. 26 para. (1) of Law No. 202/2013, the CNPF conducts control over the compliance with the provisions of legislation in the field of consumer credit contracts.
12. Furthermore, 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 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."
13. In accordance with 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 in the legal relationship."
14. According to Art. 775 para. (1) of the Civil Code, "(1) The debtor and the creditor must behave in good faith at the moment of birth, during existence, at the moment of execution, and extinguishment of the obligation."
15. In accordance with Art. 1072 para. (1) of the Civil Code, "(1) In a contract between a professional and a consumer, a clause that was not individually negotiated is considered abusive if it is proposed by the professional and considerably disadvantages the consumer, contrary to good faith."
16. Furthermore, the provisions of Art. 1073 of the Civil Code are relevant, according to which, "In a contract between professionals, a clause proposed by one party that was not individually negotiated is considered abusive if it is provided for in Art. 1077 and considerably deviates, contrary to good faith, from good commercial practices."

IV. CNPF Assessment
17. Analyzing the contractual clauses, the information from the documents presented by the creditor and debtor, in light of the requirements of Law No. 105/2003, Law No. 202/2013, and the Civil Code, especially in relation to the regulatory framework stated above, the CNPF highlights the following:
17.1. Initially, it is claimed that the quality of professional possessed by "CASH&GO" SRL in the legal relationship under examination is established, for the subsequent qualification of the abusive nature of the contractual clauses.
Regarding this, it should be noted that, on the date of concluding the Contract, the NBO "CASH&GO" SRL was conducting credit activity. Following the liquidation of the main type of activity by deregistering the NBO "CASH&GO" SRL from the Register of authorized non-bank credit organizations, in accordance with Art. 20 para. (2) lit. a) of Law No. 1/2018 on non-bank credit organizations, in the State Register of legal persons, kept by the Public Services Agency, the corresponding modifications were made, including in the name of the legal person, excluding the phrase "Non-bank Credit Organization" and the abbreviation "NBO", the creditor finally having the name "CASH&GO" SRL. Taking into account the quality held on the date of establishing the legal relationship, it is established that its activity was conducted 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. Complementarily, it is noted that in accordance with the provisions of Art. 4 para. (2) of Law No. 192/1998 on the National Financial Market Commission, the competences of the CNPF regarding regulation, supervision, and control in the field of consumer rights protection extend, correspondingly, to subjects who previously held the quality provided for in para. (1), until all obligations are honored or until all rights are exercised in relation to consumers.

3
17.2. In accordance with point 3.6 of the Contract, "During the period of delay, a late payment interest (penalty) will be calculated in the amount of 2% of the credit debt sum for each day of delay-from the first day of delay, after the repayment date of the non-bank credit indicated in the contract, and until the day of effective repayment of the credit."
17.3. According to Art. 1069 para. (4) of the Civil Code, "In the contract between a professional and a consumer, it is presumed that the clauses were proposed by the professional and that they were not individually negotiated."
17.4. In this context, it should be noted that, within the administrative procedure, the creditor did not present evidence demonstrating that the consumer had the effective possibility to influence the content of the clause at point 3.6 of the Contract, including regarding the amount of the penalty, the calculation base, the period of application, or the existence of a cap on it. Accordingly, in the absence of contrary evidence, the clause at point 3.6 of the Contract should be assessed as a clause that was not individually negotiated.
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 was not individually negotiated is considered abusive if it is proposed by the professional and considerably disadvantages the consumer, contrary to good faith. (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 evaluation according to para. (1) of this article and Art. 1075. (3) The lists provided by the articles mentioned in para. (2) will not be interpreted as exhaustive lists." At the same time, according to Art. 1077 para. (1) point 6 of the Civil Code: "(1) The following clauses are considered abusive: [...] 6) demanding from the consumer who has not fulfilled the obligation without justification a disproportionate penalty in relation to the damage caused by the non-fulfillment of contractual obligations;" For the purpose of assessing the considerable disadvantage and the disproportionate nature of the penalty, within the limits of its discretionary right, the CNPF retains as relevant reference elements - the amount of the penalty, its annualized equivalent, the accumulation rate, the existence of time limits, the total value of the credit, as well as the good faith of the creditor.

4
17.5. In this case, establishing a penalty of 2 percent for each day of delay represents, by its level, a significant pecuniary burden for the consumer, because the penalty can reach, in a relatively short period, an amount comparable or even superior to the outstanding principal obligation, whereas the clause establishes a sanction that accumulates daily, for an indefinite period, without establishing a contractual cap on the maximum amount that can be charged. At a rate of 2 percent for each day of delay and a calculation base of 7,000 lei, the penalty constitutes 140 lei for each day of delay and can reach, after only 50 days, if a simple application of the daily rate is considered, a value equal to the sum of the debt on which it is calculated. Subsequently, it continues to accumulate thereafter, without a contractual cap, a circumstance which, in total, constitutes a considerable disadvantage for the consumer. Under these conditions, the passage of time leads, by itself, to the continuous increase of the consumer's obligation, without point 3.6 of the Contract establishing a contractual mechanism by which the accumulation of the penalty would be limited after reaching a reasonable level, related to the creditor's damage. In this sense, it should be noted that the level of the sanction must be correlated with its economic function, namely ensuring timely repayment, and must not lead to the creation of an obligation whose magnitude makes the repayment of the principal debt difficult or even excessively burdensome.
At the same time, the sanction provided for in point 3.6 of the Contract must be analyzed in the context of the costs borne by the consumer as a result of the Contract. According to point 3.1 of the Contract, interest is calculated daily until the date of effective repayment of the credit and the interest for the use of the credit. Therefore, even after the appearance of the arrears, the creditor continues to charge interest on the unpaid capital, being remunerated for the period during which the capital remains at the disposal of the debtor. Under these conditions, the cost of capital usage and, to a relevant extent, the cost associated with its unavailability are already reflected in the contractual interest. The additional application of a penalty of 2 percent for each day of delay considerably amplifies the pecuniary burden of the consumer, without the Contract resulting in an objective justification for such a level. The arguments exposed support the condition of considerable disadvantage to the consumer and the disproportionate nature of the penalty, which determines the abusive character of the contractual clause.
17.6. Regarding the requirement of good faith, it is assessed that a professional who would have acted fairly and with consideration for the legitimate interests of the consumer could not reasonably assume that the latter, within the framework of an effective individual negotiation, would have accepted a clause that allows the accumulation of a penalty of 2 percent for each day of delay, without a cap and until the full payment of the debt, under the conditions that this sanction can reach, in a relatively short interval, to equal and subsequently exceed the value of the outstanding obligation.
In this order of ideas, the findings from the Decision of the Supreme Court of Justice, dated 30.07.2025, pronounced in Case No. 2rac-269/22, are relevant, according to which, "when the penalty is calculated daily as a percentage of the outstanding debt, without a cap or other limitation mechanism, it always becomes disproportionate if it reaches to exceed the outstanding debt" (point 62), this disproportionality resulting "from the very nature of the cumulative calculation formula", or, "a daily percentage penalty generates an exponential growth of the amount owed, regardless of the concrete circumstances of the delay, its duration, or any efforts of the debtor to remedy the situation", the result becoming "a punitive sanction that no longer fulfills the essential function of evaluating in advance and reasonably the possible damage" (point 63). Under these conditions, the CNPF finds that point 3.6 of the Contract constitutes an abusive clause both in light of Art. 1072 para. (1) of the Civil Code, and on the basis of Art. 1077 para. (1) point 6) of the Civil Code, because the clause, not being individually negotiated, considerably disadvantages, contrary to good faith, the consumer, by excessively aggravating its pecuniary burden and, at the same time, establishes a disproportionate penalty in relation to the damage caused by the non-fulfillment of the obligation.

5
18. From the considerations exposed above, on the basis of Art. 1 para. (1), 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 Financial Market Commission, Law No. 202/2013 on consumer credit contracts, Law No. 105/2003 on consumer protection, the Administrative Code, the Civil Code, and the Regulation on the organization and functioning of the National Financial Market Commission (CNPF Decision No. 57/11/2022),
The National Financial Market Commission DECIDES:

1. The abusive character of the clause in the Non-bank Credit Contract No. [...] dated [...], contained in point 3.6, according to which, "During the period of delay, a late payment interest (penalty) will be calculated in the amount of 2% of the credit debt sum for each day of delay-from the first day of delay, after the repayment date of the non-bank credit indicated in the contract, and until the day of effective repayment of the credit." is established.
2. A lawsuit is filed in the court, for the purpose of requesting the establishment of the nullity of the abusive clause, indicated in point 1.
3. Control over the execution of point 2 is placed on the Legal Department.
4. This Decision can be contested by submitting a preliminary request to the CNPF (MD-2012, Chisinau, 77 Stefan cel Mare si Sfant Blvd), within 30 days from the date of communication.
5. This Decision enters into force on the date of adoption and is communicated to the recipients in accordance with the legislation and published on the official website of the CNPF (www.cnpf.md).

Dumitru BUDIANSCHI,
PRESIDENT