Decision on the Request to Suspend Enforcement of CNPF Decision No. 34/1 Regarding the Fine Imposed on OCN MOGO LOANS 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
28 July 2026 No. 37/1

Regarding the Request for Suspension of Enforcement of Decision No. 34/1 of the National Financial Market Commission dated 13.07.2026 on the application of a coercive fine to OCN “MOGO LOANS” SRL, related to the enforcement of the prescription in point 3 of Decision No. 28/3 of the National Financial Market Commission dated 09.06.2025 on the results of the thematic control carried out within OCN “MOGO LOANS” SRL

On 22.07.2026, within the National Financial Market Commission (CNPF/supervisory authority), the Preliminary Application was registered (No. 6207), submitted by OCN “MOGO LOANS” SRL (professional/lender/participant), regarding the annulment of CNPF Decision No. 34/1 dated 13.07.2026.

At the same time, on 22.07.2026, simultaneously with the submission of the preliminary application, OCN “MOGO LOANS” SRL separately submitted the request for suspension of enforcement of CNPF Decision No. 34/1 dated 13.07.2026, in which it requests:

“1. Admission of this request and its examination within the preliminary procedure initiated against CNPF Decision No. 34/1 of 13.07.2026.
2. Suspension of enforcement of points 2–4 of Decision No. 34/1 until the completion of the preliminary procedure, including suspension of the due date of the fine, of forced execution, of the repeated application of the fine, and of accessory or subsequent measures based on non-payment thereof.
3. Subsidiarily, suspension of enforcement of points 2–3, maintaining the reporting obligation in point 4, without reporting or continuation of remediation measures constituting legal recognition of the legality of the contested act.
4. Abstention, until the adoption and communication of the decision on this request, from initiating forced execution or applying a new fine and written confirmation of this provisional conduct.
5. Adoption and communication of the reasoned decision by 23.07.2026, 15:00.
6. Immediate communication, to info@mogo.md, of the registration number and date of the request, as well as of the designated executor.” (Request for Suspension).

In fact, on 09.06.2025, the CNPF adopted Decision No. 28/3 on the results of the thematic control carried out within OCN “MOGO LOANS” SRL (Decision No. 28/3/2025/Decision).

Regarding the subject matter, according to point 3 of Decision No. 28/3/2025, the professional was prescribed to return, 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 (which include interest, commissions, fees, penalties, late interest, and any other type of payment), with the exception of 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 point 4 of Decision No. 28/3/2025, the professional was prescribed to provide complete pre-contractual information using the “Standard Information on Consumer Credit” form, presented in annex No. 1 of Law No. 202/2013 on consumer credit contracts, respecting the established format (Law No. 202/2013).

Furthermore, according to point 5 of Decision No. 28/3/2025, the professional was to inform the CNPF monthly about the measures taken to execute the prescriptions mentioned in points 3 and 4 of the Decision, attaching confirmatory documents.

In this context, it should be noted that the deadline for enforcement of Decision No. 28/3/2025 expired on 09.12.2025.

Thus, on 26.01.2026, the CNPF initiated ex officio an administrative procedure regarding the verification of the execution of the prescriptions provided in point 3 of Decision No. 28/3/2025, which was connected with the request submitted by OCN “MOGO LOANS” SRL on 23.01.2026, in which the professional requested information regarding the CNPF’s opinion on the progress made by the lender before the expiration of the enforcement deadline of the Decision.

In this case, it should be noted that, by Decision No. 38/1 dated 08.08.2025 regarding the Preliminary Application submitted by OCN “MOGO LOANS” SRL, regarding the annulment of Decision No. 28/3 of the National Financial Market Commission dated 09.06.2025 on the results of the thematic control carried out within OCN “MOGO LOANS” SRL (Decision No. 38/1/2025), the CNPF partially admitted the Preliminary Application regarding the annulment of Decision No. 28/3/2025, specifically the verification of the execution of the prescribed obligation was carried out taking into account points 2–3 of the dispositive part of Decision No. 38/1/2025.

As a result of the examination of monthly reports, explanations, and information presented by OCN “MOGO LOANS” SRL, as well as other materials held by the CNPF, it was established that the obligation resulting from point 3 of Decision No. 28/3/2025 was not fully executed within the legal deadline established by the supervisory authority.

Consequently, the CNPF adopted Decision No. 10/1 on 24.02.2026 regarding the summons for execution by OCN “MOGO LOANS” SRL of the prescriptions from Decision No. 28/3 of the National Financial Market Commission dated 09.06.2025 on the results of the thematic control carried out within OCN “MOGO LOANS” SRL (Decision No. 10/1/2026).

Under Decision No. 10/1/2026, the professional was summoned to execute point 3 of Decision No. 28/3/2025 within 90 days from the date of its communication, a deadline that expired on 28.05.2026.

At the same time, OCN “MOGO LOANS” SRL was warned that, in case of non-execution of the obligation provided in point 1 of the contested Decision, within the established deadline, the CNPF would apply a coercive fine in the amount of 5,000 conventional units, equivalent to 250,000 MDL.

Consequently, upon expiration of the 90-day deadline established by Decision No. 10/1/2026, as a result of examining the information, reports, and entries presented by OCN “MOGO LOANS” SRL, as well as the other materials accumulated during the administrative procedure, the CNPF found that the obligation provided in point 3 of Decision No. 28/3/2025 was not fully executed.

Consequently, on 13.07.2026, the CNPF adopted Decision No. 34/1 regarding the application of a coercive fine to OCN “MOGO LOANS” SRL, related to the enforcement of the prescription in point 3 of Decision No. 28/3 of the National Financial Market Commission dated 09.06.2025 on the results of the thematic control carried out within OCN “MOGO LOANS” SRL (Decision No. 34/1/2026/Contested Decision).

Disagreeing with Decision No. 34/1/2026, the professional submitted a Preliminary Application, requesting the annulment of the contested Decision, as well as the suspension of its enforcement.

Regarding the Request for Suspension of Enforcement of the Contested Decision, it should be noted that, in accordance with Art. 172 para. (1) and para. (3) of the Administrative Code, “(1) If an individual administrative act unfavorable is contested with a preliminary application, the public authority, ex officio or at the request of the affected person, may suspend its enforcement until the completion of the preliminary procedure. [...] (3) The suspension of enforcement of an individual administrative act unfavorable is decided by the public authority competent to resolve the preliminary application. The decision on the suspension of enforcement is taken within 5 working days from the moment of registration, unless the law provides otherwise.”.

Under the conditions that the object of the Preliminary Application constitutes the annulment and suspension of a decision adopted by the CNPF, whose activity is regulated by Law No. 192/1998 on the National Financial Market Commission (Law No. 192/1998/framework law), the provisions of the framework law become applicable, which contain special norms regarding the grounds and conditions for suspension of enforcement of an individual administrative act.

Moreover, this approach is also founded on the legal norms contained in Art. 2 para. (2) of the Administrative Code and Art. 5 para. (3) of Law No. 100/2017 on normative acts, which explicitly determine that “Certain aspects concerning administrative activity regarding specific fields of activity may be regulated by special legislative norms derogating from the provisions of this Code only if such regulation is absolutely necessary and does not contradict the principles of this Code.” and that “[...] Special legal norms are exclusively applicable to certain categories of social relations or strictly determined subjects. In case of divergence between a general norm and a special norm contained in normative acts of the same level, the special norm applies.”.

In this sense, it should be noted a priori that Art. 23 para. (12) of Law No. 192/1998, by way of exception, establishes that, “(12) By derogation from Art. 171 para. (4) of Administrative Code No. 116/2018, filing a request for suspension of enforcement of an act of the National Commission does not automatically suspend the effects of the contested act until the resolution of the suspension request.”.

Subsequently, according to the imperative provisions of Art. 23 para. (3) of Law No. 192/1998, “(3) Suspension of enforcement of acts of the National Commission, other than those provided in para. (11), may be ordered by the National Commission, at the request of the recipient of the individual administrative act or of a third party whose rights are affected by the individual administrative act, submitted within the preliminary procedure, or by the court only at the request of the plaintiff, submitted simultaneously with the filing of the action, and only if the following conditions are cumulatively met: a) the reasons invoked by the plaintiff in support of the action are pertinent and well-founded and there is a prima facie case against the legality of the contested act; b) the plaintiff presents arguments with a factual basis that the circumstances of the dispute require the urgent ordering of suspension of enforcement of the contested administrative act to avoid serious and irreparable harm to the plaintiff’s interests; c) the harm that could be caused to the plaintiff exceeds the public interest pursued by issuing the contested administrative act.”.

Thus, the suspension of enforcement of the contested administrative act constitutes an exceptional measure, of a temporary and preventive nature, expressly provided by law, which may be ordered only in situations where the conditions established in Art. 23 para. (3) of Law No. 192/1998 are cumulatively met.

In this sense, the CNPF holds that, in ordering the suspension of enforcement of the administrative act, the existence of those cumulative grounds necessary to be met, established by law, must be established.

Analyzing the arguments exposed by OCN “MOGO LOANS” SRL in the Request for Suspension of Decision No. 34/1/2026, in light of the legal provisions applicable in this case, their lack of pertinence is appreciated, for which reason the Preliminary Application is liable to be rejected as unfounded, for the following reasons:

With reference to the condition indicated in Art. 23 para. (3) lit. a) of Law No. 192/1998, according to which “a) the reasons invoked by the plaintiff in support of the action are pertinent and well-founded and there is a prima facie case against the legality of the contested act”, it should be noted that the notion of prima facie case presupposes the existence of serious and evident indications regarding the illegality of the administrative act, but not simply the expression of disagreement, with the appreciation of the facts or with the conclusions of the authority.

In this case, the criticisms formulated by the professional essentially concern the manner in which the CNPF assessed the evidence administered and the degree of execution of the prescribed obligation, aspects that concern the examination of the merits of the dispute and are not of a nature to demonstrate the existence of an obvious appearance of illegality of Decision No. 34/1/2026.

1.1. In this case, the argument invoked by OCN “MOGO LOANS” SRL starts from an erroneous legal premise, according to which the CNPF would have had the obligation to re-individualize the amount of the coercive fine based on the measures taken by the professional after the issuance of Decision No. 10/1/2026, whereas, by Decision No. 10/1/2026, adopted under Art. 185 of the Administrative Code, the CNPF found the non-full execution of the obligation provided in point 3 of Decision No. 28/3/2025 and summoned OCN “MOGO LOANS” SRL to fully execute the respective obligation within 90 days from the communication of the administrative act.

At the same time, by the same administrative act, the CNPF explicitly established that, in case the obligation is not executed within the granted deadline, a coercive fine in the amount of 5,000 conventional units will be applied, an amount individualized and motivated by Decision No. 10/1/2026.

Consequently, the object of the verification carried out at the adoption of Decision No. 34/1/2026 constituted the obligation established in point 3 of Decision No. 28/3/2025 and whether the obligation had been fully executed within the deadline granted by the summons.

During this verification, the CNPF analyzed all measures taken by OCN “MOGO LOANS” SRL after the issuance of Decision No. 10/1/2026 and found that, although the professional carried out some additional compliance measures, these led only to partial execution of the obligation, with 109 contracts regularized out of the total of 1,080 covered by the prescription. Since this condition was not fulfilled by the professional, the legal effects expressly provided by Decision No. 10/1/2026 became applicable.

Therefore, the fact that the professional partially executed the obligation after the issuance of Decision No. 10/1/2026 does not produce effects on the amount of the coercive fine, since neither Art. 185 of the Administrative Code nor Decision No. 10/1/2026 provide for the possibility of proportional reduction of the fine based on the degree of execution of the obligation. What had to be verified was whether the obligation had been fully executed within the deadline granted by the summons.

1.2. Regarding the professional’s allegation regarding the inclusion of assigned contracts in the assessment of the degree of execution of the prescription, it should be noted that the lender’s right to dispose of its claims by assignment, under the conditions provided by legislation, is not contested by the CNPF.

Moreover, the exercise of this right cannot be assimilated to the execution of the mandatory prescriptions established in point 3 of Decision No. 28/3/2025. By the aforementioned administrative act, concrete methods of compliance were established for the lender, namely, the return of all payments provided for in the credit contracts, with the exception of the initial disbursed amount, or, if applicable, notification of the debtors concerned regarding the fact that the creditor collected only the disbursed amount.

Therefore, the object of the verification carried out by the CNPF did not constitute the existence or non-existence of legal operations for the transfer of claims, but the effective execution of the obligations established by Decision No. 28/3/2025. The assignment of the claim represents a distinct legal relationship between the assignor and the assignee and does not substitute the lender’s obligation to ensure the effects sought by the measure ordered by the supervisory authority, namely the correction of the legal relationship with the debtor and informing them of the correct amount of their obligation.

In this context, even in the situation where the lender claims that it assigned only the amount representing the principal of the loan, this circumstance does not demonstrate, by itself, the execution of the prescription. To be appreciated as execution, it was necessary to demonstrate that, prior to or independent of the assignment operation, the actions expressly provided in point 3 of Decision No. 28/3/2025 were carried out, namely the return of the amounts owed or notification of the debtors regarding the fact that only the initial disbursed amount is to be paid, and that this commitment is also assumed by the assignee.

Thus, the supervisory authority did not deny the lender’s right to use the assignment mechanism, but appreciated that this legal operation cannot be considered, in the absence of fulfillment of the prescribed obligations, as a method of execution of Decision No. 28/3/2025 and cannot reduce the degree of non-execution established.

1.3. Similarly, the professional’s arguments regarding the alleged contradiction between Decision No. 34/1/2026 and the CNPF’s public communication cannot be upheld.

Thus, the aforementioned communication represents an instrument for informing the public and does not produce legal effects on individual administrative acts, which are not susceptible to modifying, completing, or restricting the content of rights and obligations established by such acts.

In this sense, the legal nature of public communications should be appreciated in light of the regulations regarding real acts, provided by the Administrative Code.

Therefore, according to Art. 14 para. (1) and para. (2) of the Administrative Code, “(2) The real act is the public law administrative activity that does not have as its goal a concrete or abstract regulation, but a real result. Real acts are, in particular, information, warnings, or recommendations of public authorities and actions taken by them.”.

In this order of ideas, the CNPF’s public communication cannot constitute, by itself, an indication of the illegality of the contested Decision.

1.4. Regarding the alleged lack of analysis of the proportionality of the sanction applied, it should be noted that the coercive fine was applied after the completion of all administrative measures taken to ensure the voluntary execution of the obligations established by Decision No. 28/3/2025. In this context, the supervisory authority offered the participant the possibility of voluntary compliance, examined the measures taken by it, and found that the prescribed obligation remained only partially executed.

Under these conditions, the support according to which the supervisory authority would have been obliged to grant new deadlines, issue additional warnings, or apply less intrusive measures does not result from the provisions of Art. 181–186 of the Administrative Code and cannot lead to the conclusion of disproportionality of the sanction applied, as the measure ordered by Decision No. 10/1/2026 had as its goal the assurance of the full execution of the obligation established in point 3 of Decision No. 28/3/2025, namely the effective compliance of the participant with the prescribed measure.

Therefore, the coercive fine did not intervene as an isolated measure, but as a legal instrument, intended to determine the execution of the obligation already established, under the conditions that it remained only partially executed.

Therefore, the criticisms formulated do not meet the standard provided in Art. 23 para. (3) lit. a) of Law No. 192/1998 and do not outline a prima facie case against the legality of the contested Decision, the legal conditions for the suspension of its enforcement not being met.

With reference to the condition provided in Art. 23 para. (3) lit. b) of Law No. 192/1998, according to which “the plaintiff presents arguments with a factual basis that the circumstances of the dispute require the urgent ordering of suspension of enforcement of the contested administrative act to avoid serious and irreparable harm to the plaintiff’s interests”, the CNPF emphasizes that this requirement concerns the existence of concrete, current, and verifiable circumstances that justify the urgency of the measure and demonstrate the real risk of causing serious, imminent, and impossible to remedy later harm.

With reference to the arguments of OCN “MOGO LOANS” SRL regarding the existence of a risk of serious, difficult, or impossible to fully repair harm through the execution of Decision No. 34/1/2026, it should be noted that these do not demonstrate the fulfillment of the legal conditions for the suspension of the administrative act.

Subsequently, the circumstance that Decision No. 34/1/2026 produces a patrimonial effect, through the obligation to pay the coercive fine in the amount of 250,000 MDL, is not sufficient to establish the existence of serious and difficult-to-repair harm. The patrimonial nature of an administrative measure represents a natural consequence of its application and cannot be automatically assimilated to irreparable harm, in the absence of demonstration of concrete circumstances that would substantially affect the professional’s activity.

Moreover, the invocation of the possibility of applying subsequent forced execution measures or coercive mechanisms provided by the Administrative Code has a hypothetical character and does not demonstrate the existence of actual harm. These mechanisms represent legal consequences provided by law in case of non-execution of administrative acts and do not constitute a risk of serious harm.

Regarding the support concerning the alleged irreversible effects on consumers, it is found that this starts from an inadequate premise. The execution of Decision No. 34/1/2026 does not establish a new obligation for contractual remediation nor does it modify by itself the contractual relationships between OCN “MOGO LOANS” SRL and consumers, but represents the application of a coercive fine as a result of the non-execution of the obligation established previously in point 3 of Decision No. 28/3/2025 and maintained by Decision No. 10/1/2026.

Regarding the alleged risk concerning the relationships with “PFB Legal Consulting” SRL and pending litigations, it should be specified that these arguments are not supported by evidence demonstrating the existence of concrete, actual, and inevitable harm. The mere possibility of the appearance of operational difficulties, the need for contractual adjustments, or eventual consequences within existing litigations do not represent, in themselves, a serious and difficult-to-repair harm in the sense of the suspension procedure.

Furthermore, acceptance of such argumentation would, in fact, lead to the suspension of enforcement of any administrative act that produces legal consequences on the activity of a professional, which would deprive of effect the principle of enforcement of administrative acts until their eventual annulment.

Therefore, the circumstances invoked by OCN “MOGO LOANS” SRL reflect consequences inherent to the execution of a contested administrative measure, without demonstrating the existence of serious, difficult, or impossible to fully repair harm, such that the condition provided by Art. 23 para. (3) lit. b) of Law No. 192/1998 is not met.

With reference to the condition provided in Art. 23 para. (3) lit. c) of Law No. 192/1998, in accordance with which “the harm that could be caused to the plaintiff exceeds the public interest pursued by issuing the contested administrative act”, it should be noted that, although OCN “MOGO LOANS” SRL requested the ordering of the suspension of enforcement of the contested Decision, it did not present arguments from which it results that the alleged harm would be of such intensity as to prevail over the public interest, protected by the administrative act issued by the CNPF, as mere dissatisfaction with the content of the administrative act or possible economic inconveniences inherent to its application cannot be assimilated to serious and disproportionate harm.

[RegAlert note: the English text above is a translation of the first 24,000 characters of a 29,208-character original (82% of the document). The remainder was not translated. The complete original-language text is stored with this document.]