Decision on the Request by OCN MOGO LOANS SRL for Extension of the Deadline Under CNPF Decision No. 28/3

REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA NATIONAL FINANCIAL MARKET COMMISSION 1 DECISION 13 January 2026 No. 2/3 Regarding the request of OCN “MOGO LOANS” SRL concerning the extension of the deadline set out in point 3 of Decision No. 28/3 of the National Financial Market Commission of 09.06.2025 regarding the results of the thematic control carried out within OCN “MOGO LOANS” SRL

On 07.11.2025, within the National Financial Market Commission (CNPF/supervisory authority), the request of OCN “MOGO LOANS” SRL (creditor/professional) was registered (No. 8108), in which an extension of the deadline for implementing Decision No. 28/3 of the CNPF of 09.06.2025 regarding the results of the thematic control carried out within OCN “MOGO LOANS” SRL (Decision No. 28/3/2025/Decision) was requested for an additional 12 months.

In support of the request to extend the implementation deadline of Decision No. 28/3/2025, OCN “MOGO LOANS” SRL invokes the constant efforts made for compliance (subject to the illegality of the invoked Decision by contesting it in administrative litigation), the low number of refund requests received from consumers compared to the total number of notifications sent, the extrapolation of the current rate of receiving applications which, in the opinion of the creditor, would lead to exceeding the initial 180-day deadline, and the need to ensure an orderly and verifiable implementation.

Furthermore, the request is based on the provisions of Art. 62 para. (1) of the Administrative Code and Art. 151 para. (5) of Law No. 202/2013 on consumer credit contracts (Law No. 202/2013, as amended), as well as on the general statute of limitations.

According to point 3 of Decision No. 28/3/2025, OCN “MOGO LOANS” SRL was ordered to refund, within 180 days, all payments provided for in the credit contracts, listed in Annexes No. 3, No. 4, No. 5, and No. 6 of the Control Act mentioned in point 1 (which include interest, commissions, fees, penalties, late interest, and any other type of payment), except for the initial disbursed amount or, if applicable, notification of the debtors concerned in the credit contracts in the aforementioned annexes regarding the fact that the creditor collected only the disbursed amount.

At the same time, in accordance with point 5 of Decision No. 28/3/2025, the creditor was to inform the CNPF monthly about the measures taken to implement the prescription set out in point 3 of the Decision, attaching confirmatory documents.

2 Consequently, the creditor presented, within the deadline set by the CNPF, monthly reports regarding the implementation of the prescription set out in point 3 of Decision No. 28/3/2025 (registered No. 5323 on 10.07.2025, No. 5967 on 08.08.2025, No. 6665 on 09.09.2025, No. 7396 on 07.10.2025, and No. 8109 on 07.11.2025).

From the information presented, it is established that, during the 5 months of implementation of the Decision (from the date of its issuance until the date of filing the request to extend the implementation deadline), the creditor:

1. notified only 558 debtors, or approximately 50 percent of the total 1,080 debtors concerned;
2. reduced the financial obligations of debtors for only 8 credit contracts, ensuring less than 1 percent of the total 1,080 credit contracts concerned, thus confirming the insufficiency of the measures taken and the unsatisfactory level of fulfillment of the obligations established by the Decision.

Additionally, in the case, in accordance with Art. 94 para. (1) of the Administrative Code, to respect the creditor's right to be heard in the administrative procedure, by letter No. 04-5/4546 of the CNPF dated 19.11.2025, sent to the email address info@mogo.md, the creditor was notified of the date and time of the hearings (in this case – 24.11.2025, 15:00), with a request to confirm participation or refusal to participate in the hearings by 21.11.2025, 16:00.

By letter registered at the CNPF with No. 8437 on 21.11.2025, OCN “MOGO LOANS” SRL confirmed participation in the hearings within the established deadline.

During the hearings on 24.11.2025, Mr. Veaceslav Luchianenco, the administrator of the creditor, maintained his previously expressed position, simultaneously requesting the suspension of the administrative procedure, with the granting of an additional deadline for the presentation of further explanations, facts which were recorded in the Hearing Protocol of the participant in the administrative procedure.

Subsequently, on 26.11.2025, within the CNPF, the request of OCN “MOGO LOANS” SRL regarding the suspension of the examination of the request of 07.11.2025 concerning the extension of the implementation deadline of Decision No. 28/3/2025 was registered (No. 8541), by granting a reasonable term of 10 calendar days for the presentation of corresponding information.

In this case, given that the administrative procedure was initiated at the request of the creditor, and its resolution is conditioned by the presentation of additional information by the participant in the procedure, by the Disposition of the President of the CNPF No. 1192 of 28.11.2025 regarding the suspension of the administrative procedure initiated on the basis of the request submitted by OCN “MOGO LOANS” SRL, the administrative procedure was suspended until 08.12.2025 inclusive, by applying Art. 81 para. (2) of the Administrative Code.

Therefore, on 08.12.2025, OCN “MOGO LOANS” SRL presented explanations and relevant documents (registered at the CNPF with No. 8813), including a notification model sent to the concerned debtors.

In this case, analyzing this notification model, its formal character is revealed, limited to a generic invitation to “discuss financial obligations,” without clear and explicit indication of the rights of the debtors and the specific obligations established by Decision No. 28/3/2025.

Moreover, this method of information does not ensure transparency, does not allow consumers to understand the nature and extent of their rights, and indicates an insufficient level of compliance with the prescription issued in point 3 of the Decision.

Additionally, based on the complexity of the subject matter of the administrative procedure and taking into account the need for a multi-faceted examination of the information presented, which implies time for forming objective and motivated conclusions, to ensure the principle of good faith of the public authority in managing deadlines, on the basis of Art. 60 para. (4) of the Administrative Code, by the Disposition of the President of the CNPF No. 1231 of 16.12.2025 regarding the extension of the general term of the administrative procedure, initiated on the basis of the request submitted by OCN “MOGO LOANS” SRL, the term of the administrative procedure was extended by 15 days.

On the subject, following the examination of the explanations and documents presented, including Annex No. 4 (attached to the submitted information), the CNPF, by letter No. 04-5/4972 of 24.12.2025 (sent to the email address info@mogo.md), notified the creditor of the need to additionally request the presentation of detailed explanations, highlighting the reasons that determined the establishment of the status of some contracts as “Terminated” and, if applicable, “Closed,” as well as explanations regarding the reasons for non-implementation of the prescription set out in point 3 of the Decision, with respect to these categories of contracts.

At the same time, by the same letter, the CNPF communicated a copy of the Disposition of the Vice-President of the CNPF No. 1249 of 24.12.2025 regarding the suspension of the administrative procedure initiated on the basis of the request submitted by OCN “MOGO LOANS” SRL, by which the procedure in question was suspended until 07.01.2026 inclusive.

Subsequently, by letter dated 06.01.2026 (registered with No. 85), OCN “MOGO LOANS” SRL presented the information requested by the CNPF.

Based on the set of explanations presented during the administrative procedure, the CNPF establishes that the level of implementation of the prescription set out in point 3 of Decision No. 28/3/2025 remains unsatisfactory, the results obtained being disproportionate compared to the deadline already granted.

Moreover, the creditor declares that the status of “Closed” generally indicates a completed contract (usually fully paid off, according to the schedule or in advance).

Thus, with respect to 390 contracts with “Closed” status, in 330 cases, the amounts in the column “Total value paid in the contract currency” exceed the amounts in the column “Total value of the credit in the contract currency,” which signifies that the creditor admitted the collection of monthly installments, as well as the non-refund of the additionally collected sums, contrary to the provisions of Decision No. 28/3/2025.

In the same vein, the creditor mentions that the status of “Terminated” indicates the early termination of the contract (for example, termination for non-payment of installments or agreed early termination).

Therefore, in the case of 26 contracts with “Terminated” status, the amounts in the column “Total value paid in the contract currency” exceed the amounts in the column “Total value of the credit in the contract currency.”

In these cases, termination for non-payment of installments cannot be invoked, as, according to Art. 15 para. (9) of Law No. 202/2013 (in the version in force on the date of issuance of Decision No. 28/3/2025), the creditor has the right to request only the refund of the initial disbursed amount according to the credit contract granted; in this case, it is established that the debtors have fulfilled their obligations in accordance with the aforementioned legal provisions.

All the more so, the creditor's arguments, formulated from the perspective of the idea of agreed early termination, are contradictory, as the creditor himself supports that termination was admitted by a bilateral legal act.

Regarding the creditor's statement about depositing a “consistent and consistent effort” in implementing the prescription, the CNPF finds that this argument is not supported by objective facts, being refuted by the presentation of statistical information and information regarding the effective measures taken.

Despite the substantial term of 180 days, the creditor reduced the financial obligations of debtors for only 8 credit contracts, ensuring less than 1 percent of the total credit contracts concerned, contacted only approximately 50 percent of debtors, according to its own reports, and also used a formal and inconclusive notification model, without clearly and explicitly informing consumers about their rights.

Regarding the statistical argument of “trend of requests” invoked by the creditor, it should be noted that this does not constitute a legal basis for extending the deadline for implementing an administrative act.

Furthermore, the lack of requests does not exempt the creditor from the obligation to fully, transparently, and proactively inform debtors and to refund undue sums, without conditioning implementation exclusively on the initiative of consumers, when the Decision expressly provides for this obligation.

Accordingly, accepting the creditor's reasoning would lead to the transfer of the responsibility for implementation from the creditor to the consumer, which contradicts the purpose of the Decision, the principles of consumer protection of financial services, and the active role that the professional must exercise in the financial market.

Regarding the argument related to Art. 62 para. (1) of the Administrative Code, it should be retained that this norm does not establish an obligation to extend the deadline nor does it presume an absolute right of the participant to benefit from this institution, but grants the supervisory authority discretionary competence, conditioned by the existence of objective and justified reasons.

In this case, the creditor did not demonstrate objective impossibility of implementation, the delay being imputable to its own insufficient actions, but not to external or unforeseeable factors.

At the same time, in the opinion of the supervisory authority, the term of 180 days is reasonable and proportionate, considering the nature of the obligation and the number of debtors concerned.

Likewise, the creditor's argument regarding the protection term set out in Art. 151 para. (5) of Law No. 202/2013 cannot be accepted, as, according to the provisions of the cited norm above, it represents a material term for the protection of consumer rights, but not a procedural term applicable to the implementation of an individual administrative act.

Regarding the invocation of the general statute of limitations, it should be specified that the general statute of limitations, regulated by the Civil Code, refers to the substantive right to action and is not applicable to the implementation of an administrative act issued by the supervisory authority.

In this context, the implementation of the Decision is governed by the deadlines expressly established by the supervisory authority and by the principles of legality, efficiency, and consumer protection, and cannot be conditioned by the terms of civil prescription.

Also, contrary to the creditor's statements regarding the alleged lack of impact on public interest, the CNPF records that, in order not to prejudice public interest, prompt and effective implementation of the Decision is required, but not the unjustified postponement of compliance with its provisions.

From the considerations recorded above, on the basis of 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, the Administrative Code, point 16 and point 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 request submitted by OCN “MOGO LOANS” SRL regarding the extension of the deadline set out in point 3 of Decision No. 28/3 of the National Financial Market Commission of 09.06.2025 regarding the results of the thematic control carried out within OCN “MOGO LOANS” SRL (registered within the CNPF with No. 8108 of 07.11.2025) is rejected.

2. This Decision may be contested by submitting a preliminary request to the addresses of the CNPF (MD-2012, Chisinau, Stefan cel Mare si Sfant Blvd., No. 77 or office@cnpf.md), within 30 days from the date of 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).

Dumitru BUDIANSCHI, PRESIDENT