Decision on the Preliminary Request Submitted by OCN MOGO LOANS SRL Against CNPF Decision No. 10/1 of 24.02.2026

REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA
NATIONAL FINANCIAL MARKET COMMISSION
DECISION
21 April 2026 No. 19/3
Regarding the Preliminary Request submitted by OCN “MOGO LOANS” SRL, against the Decision of the National Financial Market Commission No. 10/1 dated 24.02.2026 regarding the summons for execution by OCN “MOGO LOANS” SRL of the prescriptions from the Decision of the National Financial Market Commission No. 28/3 dated 09.06.2025 regarding the results of the thematic control conducted within OCN “MOGO LOANS” SRL

On 25.03.2026, within the National Financial Market Commission (CNPF/supervisory authority), the Preliminary Request was registered (No. 2115), submitted by OCN “MOGO LOANS” SRL (participant/creditor), regarding the annulment of CNPF Decision No. 10/1 dated 24.02.2026, requesting:
“1. Admission of this preliminary request;
2. Annulment of CNPF Decision No. 10/1 dated 24.02.2026;
3. Suspension of the execution of CNPF Decision No. 10/1 dated 24.02.2026 until
the resolution of this preliminary request.” (Preliminary Request).
In this case, in order to ensure a comprehensive, objective, and transparent investigation that offers the real possibility to analyze the participant's claim, the participant is hereby notified that the examination of the factual and legal circumstances relevant to the case, in preliminary order, will be carried out by distinguished executors within the CNPF.

In fact, on 24.02.2026, the CNPF adopted Decision No. 10/1 regarding the summons for execution by OCN “MOGO LOANS” SRL of the prescriptions from the Decision of the National Financial Market Commission No. 28/3 dated
09.06.2025 regarding the results of the thematic control conducted within OCN
“MOGO LOANS” SRL (Decision No. 10/1/2026/Contested Decision), by which the participant was summoned to execute point 3 of Decision No. 28/3/2025 within 90 days.

Not agreeing with Decision No. 10/1/2026, the creditor submitted a Preliminary Request, by which it requests the annulment of the contested decision, as well as the suspension of its execution. Subsidiarily, the request for suspension of the execution of Decision No. 10/1 dated
24.02.2026 (point 3 of the Preliminary Request) was rejected by CNPF
Decision No. 16/1 dated 31.03.2026 regarding the request for suspension of the execution of the Decision of the National Financial Market Commission No. 10/1 dated 24.02.2026

regarding the summons for execution by OCN “MOGO LOANS” SRL of the prescriptions from the Decision of the National Financial Market Commission No. 28/3 from date 09.06.2025 regarding the results of the thematic control conducted within OCN “MOGO LOANS” SRL, communicated to the creditor, in accordance with legislation.

In law, Article 19 of the Administrative Code provides that “The Preliminary Request 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 stipulates that “(1) The preliminary procedure aims to verify the legality of individual administrative acts. [...] (3) The Preliminary Request may be directed towards:
a) the annulment in whole or in part of an illegal or null individual administrative act; [...]”.

Furthermore, under the conditions of Article 166 of the Administrative Code, “The Preliminary Request may be submitted only if the person claims rights violated by the issuance or rejection of the issuance of an individual administrative act.”, and in accordance with Article 167 para. (1) and para. (3) of the same law, “(1) If it considers the request preliminary as admissible and well-founded, the issuing public authority annuls in whole or in part the contested individual administrative act or issues the requested individual administrative act. [...] (3) The issuing public authority resolves the preliminary request 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 examination of the preliminary request.

From the content of the aforementioned 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.

Critically analyzing the arguments invoked in the Preliminary Request, the CNPF retains the following:

1. Regarding the argument invoked by the participant, according to which the Contested Decision
   would be affected by internal contradictions of the CNPF and by insufficient reasoning (point A of the Preliminary Request/point III subp. 1 of the Participant's Written Opinion), it should be specified that this argument cannot be retained, under the conditions that the CNPF exposed, clearly, coherently, and consecutively, both the factual situation, as well as the legal grounds that underpinned the adoption of the administrative act.

Thus, the alleged internal contradictions are purely declarative and unfounded, referring to different expositions from a linguistic perspective, but which have the same semantics, whereas the findings retained by the supervisory authority at point 11 of the Contested Decision regarding the non-execution of prescriptions derive, directly, from the analysis of the administrative case materials, including the reports presented by the participant, his explanations, as well as other evidence gathered.

The conclusion exposed at point 13 of the Contested Decision, regarding the complete non-execution of the prescriptions from Decision No. 28/3/2025, is, fully, in concordance with the factual situation retained, being supported by concrete data, such as the execution of the obligation only in relation to a small number of contracts from the total affected, whereas the notion of “complete non-execution”, used by the supervisory authority, does not have the absolute significance suggested by the participant (in the sense of a total lack of execution of all obligations), but refers to the global assessment of the degree of compliance, relative to the entire object of the prescription.

In this case, the obligation established by Decision No. 28/3/2025 concerns a total number of 1,080 credit contracts, and its execution was realized only in relation to 24 contracts, which is, simultaneously, a partial execution (in a very low volume), but also a non-execution of the administrative act, which prescribes a certain volume of execution. Therefore, from the perspective of the extent of the obligation and the effective result obtained, qualifying the situation as one of “complete non-execution” reveals, in essence, an extensive non-execution over the entire obligation.

In this case, this formulation must be understood in a functional and legal sense, because administrative law operates with assessments of substance, relative to the efficiency of the execution of the obligation, but not to the existence of isolated acts of formal compliance.

Furthermore, the measures ordered by the CNPF are in full correlation with the findings effectuated, being based on the provisions of the Administrative Code, which govern the executory nature of administrative acts and the mechanisms of constraint, in the event of non-execution thereof.

Regarding the alleged insufficient reasoning, it is found that the Decision contains a broad and detailed reasoning, including an exhaustive description of the actions taken by the participant during the execution period, the individualized analysis of these actions, as well as the evaluation of the effective degree of compliance.

Furthermore, the supervisory authority indicated, expressly, the relevant evidence, including monthly reports, correspondence held, as well as the results of the hearing of debtors, providing a complete picture of the situation examined.

Moreover, the CNPF explicitly argued the reason why certain actions of the participant, such as notifications sent to debtors, do not correspond to the object of the prescription established previously, thus demonstrating the non-execution of the obligation, in the sense required by the administrative act.

Last but not least, the Contested Decision contains a detailed analysis of the proportionality of the measure applied, including the amount of the constraint fine, being taken into account criteria such as the degree of non-execution, the number of contracts affected, and the economic interest of the participant in delaying execution.

Therefore, the Contested Decision fully meets the requirements of reasoning, allowing the recipient to understand both the facts retained and the legal reasoning of the supervisory authority, and the contrary arguments of the participant represent an erroneous and biased interpretation of its content. Moreover, although the participant claims the lack of reasoning, he does not indicate exactly which elements are missing from the reasoning of the administrative act and which, consequently, determine the impossibility of perceiving how the supervisory authority exercised its discretionary right in making the decision.

2. Regarding the participant's allegations concerning the alleged violation by the
   CNPF of the obligation to conduct a complete and objective investigation of the case (point B of the Preliminary Request/point III subp. 2 of the Participant's Written Opinion), it should be retained that these are unfounded and unproven, whereas the CNPF, as provided for in
   Article 85 para. (3) of the Administrative Code, did not limit itself to the statements of
   the participant, but examined the entire relevant evidentiary material, including monthly reports, presented during the execution period, additional explanations and attached documents, as well as resorted to the administration of direct evidence, such as the hearing of debtors, in order to effectively verify the manner of execution.

Thus, in accordance with Article 87 para. (1) lit. a) of the Administrative Code, the CNPF conducted the hearing of five debtors, randomly selected, whose credit contracts are included in Annex No. 4 to the letter from OCN “MOGO LOANS” SRL (registered at CNPF with No. 8813 on 08.12.2025), in which the respective documents reveal that the creditor did not ensure the full repayment of the amounts collected exceeding the total value of the credit, under the conditions that, for 330 of the 390 contracts with status “Closed”, and in the case of 26 credit contracts with status “Terminated”, the total amount paid by debtors exceeds the initial disbursed sum, and, as a result, the heard debtors confirmed this fact.

Furthermore, the criticism regarding the hearing of a limited number of debtors is unfounded, whereas this evidence did not have a decisive character, but a complementary one, being used for the additional verification of information resulting from the documents existing in the file.

Therefore, the conclusions reflected in the Contested Decision are not based on the statements of these persons, but on a complex body of evidence, in which decisive elements are represented by the data provided by the participant himself, by the analysis of contracts and the content of notifications sent. Under these conditions, even in the absence of hearings, the conclusion would have been the same.

Regarding the alleged ignoring of favorable facts, it is found that this represents, in reality, a dissatisfaction with the manner of appreciation of evidence, but not a lack of analysis, whereas by essential and favorable circumstances, as invoked by the participant, he attempts to artificially shift the analysis from the legal result pursued, namely the concrete execution of the obligation, to the efforts made for this purpose.

Furthermore, the CNPF, evaluating, concretely, the effective degree of compliance, found that execution was realized only in relation to a small number of contracts from the total affected, which justifies the conclusion regarding the non-execution of the obligation in its substance.

Furthermore, the invocation of the lack of a detailed methodology regarding the selection of debtors or the administration of testimonial evidence cannot be retained, because the Administrative Code confers on the supervisory authority a margin of appreciation in establishing the evidence necessary and relevant for elucidating the case.

Similarly, Article 87 and Article 92 of the Administrative Code do not establish for the public authority a formalist obligation regarding the statistical representativeness of evidence, the essential being the evaluation of the entire body of evidence administered, a condition fulfilled in this case.

3. With reference to the participant's allegation concerning the alleged “ex post introduction of new criteria regarding the content of notifications” (point C of the Preliminary Request/point III subp. 3 of the Participant's Written Opinion), it should be recorded
   that the CNPF appreciates it as totally erroneous and lacking legal foundation, because, through the Contested Decision, no new criteria were instituted, but it was concluded that the notifications sent by the participant do not correspond to the object of the prescription at point 3 of Decision No. 28/3/2025, taking into account that the respective prescription reflects, directly, the provisions of Article 15 para. (7), para. (9) and para. (9¹) of Law No. 202/2013 regarding consumer credit contracts and institutes clear obligations on the creditor, namely, the restitution of all payments provided for in credit contracts, with the exception of the initial disbursed sum, or, as the case may be, notification of the debtors affected in the credit contracts

regarding the fact of collection by the creditor only of the disbursed sum, thus the aforementioned norms have an imperative character and apply by virtue of the law, and the creditor is bound to respect them during the legal relationship of credit, including at the stage of execution and of the collection of the claim.

4. With reference to the participant's statements concerning the alleged advance establishment of the constraint fine and the premature nature of the proportionality reasoning (point D of the Preliminary Request/point III subp. 4 of the Participant's Written Opinion), it should be retained that these are
   unfounded and result from an erroneous interpretation of the legal framework.

Thus, in accordance with the provisions of Article 185 para. (1) and para. (3) of the Administrative Code, before applying coercive measures, the public authority has the obligation to summon the debtor to execution, establishing a reasonable term for compliance and indicating, expressly, the coercive measure, which is to be applied. In the case of the constraint fine, the legal norm imposes, expressly, the indication of its amount within the summons.

Under these conditions, the mention in the Contested Decision of the amount of the fine of 5,000 conventional units and the exposition of the considerations justifying this measure does not represent an anticipatory sanction, but a direct and mandatory application of the provisions of Article 185 para. (3) of the Administrative Code, intended to ensure the predictable, transparent and effective nature of the summons.

At the same time, the advance establishment of the amount of the fine does not empty the term granted for execution of its content, because, according to Article 181 para. (1) of the Administrative Code, the constraint fine intervenes only in the hypothesis of non-execution of the obligation within the established term. Until the expiration of this term, the participant benefits from the real possibility to avoid the application of the coercive measure through voluntary compliance.

Furthermore, it should be specified that the application of the constraint fine is not realized through the Contested Decision, but presupposes the adoption of a subsequent administrative act, within the administrative procedure, initiated by the CNPF, ex officio, on 26.01.2026, in order to execute point 3 of Decision No. 28/3.

Furthermore, pursuant to Article 81 para. (1) of the Administrative Code, through the Disposition of the Vice President of the CNPF No. 83 dated 26.02.2026 regarding the suspension of the administrative procedure, initiated, based on the request of OCN “MOGO LOANS” SRL, on 23.01.2026, and ex officio, on 26.01.2026, the suspension of the respective administrative procedure was ordered for a period of 90 days.

Consequently, the argument regarding the formal nature of the summons or the abusive exercise of discretionary power cannot be retained, because the CNPF acted in strict conformity with the legal framework, using the mechanism of summons as a mandatory and necessary procedural instrument for ensuring the effective execution of obligations established previously.

5. Regarding the participant's arguments concerning the alleged arbitrary and insufficiently reasoned nature of the additional term of 90 days (point E
   of the Preliminary Request/point III subp. 5 of the Participant's Written Opinion), it should be noted that these cannot be retained, because, according to Article 185 para. (1) of the Administrative Code, the supervisory authority has the obligation to establish, within the summons, a reasonable term for the execution of the obligation, without the law imposing rigid criteria or a formalized methodology for determining it. The establishment of the term is, by its nature, within the competence of appreciation of the authority

of supervision, exercised according to the concrete circumstances of the case which result from a concrete assessment of the execution conditions and the effort necessary for achieving the result pursued by the administrative act, a fact retained by the CNPF at point 17 of the Contested Decision.

With reference to the principle of proportionality invoked, it should be retained that the essence of this principle does not consist in adopting a measure convenient to the participant, but in ensuring a just balance between the public interest pursued and the creditor's obligation.

6. Having in view that, through the Preliminary Request, the participant also claims
   that the Contested Decision is inappropriate and disproportionate in the context of the pending main litigation (point F of the Preliminary Request/point III subp. 6 of the Participant's Written Opinion), it is necessary to retain, in accordance with Article 22 para. (6) of Law No. 192/1998 regarding the National Financial Market Commission, that “(6) Acts of the National Commission are not subject to control of expediency.”.

Furthermore, it should be recorded that the administrative act enjoys the presumption of legality, veracity, and authenticity, which implies its executory nature ex officio (executio ex officio) and the production of immediate legal effects. In this context, the mere existence of a pending litigation does not suspend the execution of the administrative act.

In this case, regarding Decision No. 28/3/2025, no measures of suspension of execution were ordered either through the preliminary path, nor by the court. Consequently, the obligations established by this act subsist and are to be executed, and the supervisory authority is entitled to adopt measures, in order to ensure compliance.

Regarding the alleged disproportionality, it should be retained that the CNPF acted in strict conformity with Article 29 of the Administrative Code. Thus, the measures ordered through the Contested Decision fall entirely under the principle of proportionality and namely are suitable for achieving the pursued goal, respectively for protecting the public interest and ensuring respect for the legal framework, are necessary, in the context of non-execution of previously established obligations, are reasonable, because the interference with the participant does not exceed what is necessary to achieve the legitimate goal pursued.

Therefore, the legal effect of the Contested Decision is limited to the respect by OCN “MOGO LOANS” SRL of the legislation, as well as of the administrative acts, issued by the supervisory authority.

Subsidiarily, through the Disposition of the President of the CNPF No. 175 dated 09.04.2026 regarding the extension of the term of the preliminary procedure, initiated through the Preliminary Request, submitted by OCN “MOGO LOANS” SRL, regarding the annulment of the Decision of the National Financial Market Commission No. 10/1 dated 24.02.2026 regarding the summons for execution by OCN “MOGO LOANS” SRL of the prescriptions from the Decision of the National Financial Market Commission No. 28/3 from date 09.06.2025 regarding the results of the thematic control conducted within OCN “MOGO LOANS” SRL, the term of the preliminary procedure was extended until date 24.04.2026 inclusive.

Furthermore, through the letter of CNPF No. 06-5/1232 dated 09.04.2026, the participant was informed, in accordance with Article 94 of the Administrative Code, about the right to be heard regarding the facts and circumstances relevant for the decision to be adopted within the preliminary procedure, and on the basis of Article 94 para. (2) of the Administrative Code, about the fact that the hearing is to be

carried out in writing, by submitting, to the address of the CNPF, an opinion, as a hearing, until date 15.04.2026 inclusive.

Consequently, OCN “MOGO LOANS” SRL, through the letter registered at CNPF with No. 2777 on 15.04.2026, reiterated the requests exposed through the Preliminary Request.

In accordance with the aforementioned, as a result of the complementary examination of the factual and legal circumstances retained in the administrative file, as well as of the position expressed by the participant, the CNPF finds the lack of grounds for intervention regarding Decision No. 10/1/2026, which is why the Preliminary Request is to be rejected.

From the considerations recorded above, on the basis of Article 18 para. (3), Article 20 para. (1), para. (6) and para. (7) and Article 22 para. (3) 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 points 16 and 19 of
the Regulation regarding the organization and functioning of the National Financial Market Commission (CNPF Decision No. 57/11/2022),

The National Financial Market Commission DECIDES:

1. The Preliminary Request, submitted by OCN “MOGO LOANS” SRL,
   against the Decision of the National Financial Market Commission No. 10/1 dated
   24.02.2026 regarding the summons for execution by OCN “MOGO LOANS” SRL
   of the prescriptions from the Decision of the National Financial Market Commission No. 28/3 dated 09.06.2025 regarding the results of the thematic control conducted within OCN “MOGO LOANS” SRL (registered at CNPF with No. 2115 on 25.03.2026) is rejected.

2. This Decision may be contested with an administrative lawsuit,
   submitted to the Chișinău Court, Râșcani seat (MD-2068, Chișinău city, Kiev str. 3), 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 legislation and is published on the official website of the CNPF (www.cnpf.md).

Dumitru BUDIANSCHI,
PRESIDENT