Decision on the Request to Suspend Execution of CNPF Decision No. 1/2 of 06.01.2026 Regarding the Coercive Fine Applied to 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 January 20, 2026 No. 3/7 Regarding the request to suspend the execution of Decision of the National Financial Market Commission No. 1/2 dated 06.01.2026 regarding the application of the coercive fine to "CASH&GO" SRL for non-execution of certain decisions of the National Financial Market Commission

On January 15, 2026, within the framework of the National Financial Market Commission (CNPF/supervisory authority), the Preliminary Request dated January 14, 2026 (the Preliminary Request), filed by "CASH&GO" SRL (participant/entity), was registered (No. 232), in which the following is requested: "1. The total annulment of the illegal individual administrative act, namely the CNPF Decision No. 1/2 of January 6, 2026. 2. The suspension of the execution of CNPF Decision No. 1/2 of January 6, 2026.".

In this case, it should be noted that, in order to ensure a full, objective and transparent investigation, which would offer the real possibility of analyzing the claim, the participant is informed that the examination of the factual and legal circumstances relevant to the case, preliminarily, is carried out by distinct executors within the CNPF.

In fact, on January 6, 2026, the CNPF adopted Decision No. 1/2 regarding the application of the coercive fine to "CASH&GO" SRL for non-execution of some decisions of the National Financial Market Commission (Decision No. 1/2/2026/Contested Decision).

According to point 1 of the Contested Decision, the entity was subjected to a coercive fine in the amount of 1,650 conventional units, equivalent to 82 500 MDL.

In this case, Decision No. 1/2/2026 was adopted following the finding of non-execution by the participant of the obligations stipulated in:

1. Decision No. 32/2 dated July 2, 2024 regarding the petition registered at the National Financial Market Commission with No. 2683 on April 11, 2024, in relation to OCN "CASH&GO" SRL;

2. Decision No. 33/2 dated July 9, 2024 regarding the petition registered at the National Financial Market Commission with No. 4158 on May 30, 2024, in relation to OCN "CASH&GO" SRL;

3. Decision No. 37/4 dated August 6, 2024 regarding the petition registered at the National Financial Market Commission with No. 4203 on May 31, 2024, in relation to OCN "CASH&GO" SRL;

4. Decision No. 40/5 dated August 28, 2024 regarding the petition registered at the National Financial Market Commission with No. 3889 on May 23, 2024, in relation to "CASH&GO" SRL;

5. Decision No. 40/6 dated August 28, 2024 regarding the petition registered at the National Financial Market Commission with No. 4157 on May 30, 2024, in relation to "CASH&GO" SRL;

6. Decision No. 43/11 dated September 23, 2024 regarding the petition registered at the National Financial Market Commission with No. 6337 on August 23, 2024, in relation to "CASH&GO" SRL (Decision No. 43/11/2024);

7. Decision No. 43/12 dated September 23, 2024 regarding the petition registered at the National Financial Market Commission with No. 6287 on August 21, 2024, in relation to "CASH&GO" SRL (Decision No. 43/12/2024);

8. Decision No. 43/13 dated September 23, 2024 regarding the petition registered at the National Financial Market Commission with No. 6151 on August 14, 2024, in relation to "CASH&GO" SRL (Decision No. 43/13/2024);

9. Decision No. 51/4 dated November 5, 2024 regarding the petition registered at the National Financial Market Commission with No. 7047 on September 25, 2024, in relation to "CASH&GO" SRL;

10. Decision No. 51/5 dated November 5, 2024 regarding the petition registered at the National Financial Market Commission with No. 7262 on October 4, 2024, in relation to "CASH&GO" SRL;

11. Decision No. 5/5 dated January 27, 2025 regarding the petition registered at the National Financial Market Commission with No. 8863 on December 12, 2024, in relation to "CASH&GO" SRL (unexecuted decisions).

Through the majority of the unexecuted decisions, "CASH&GO" SRL was primarily prescribed the application of Art. 15 para. (9) or, as the case may be, para. (91) of Law No. 202/2013 on consumer credit contracts.

According to Decisions No. 43/11/2024, No. 43/12/2024 and No. 43/13/2024, the entity was obliged to present the consumer with information regarding payments made and the manner of their allocation, as well as a copy of the credit contract.

In this context, it should be mentioned that, in accordance with Art. 185 of the Administrative Code, the adoption of the Contested Decision was preceded by Decision No. 58/8 dated December 2, 2025 regarding the summons for execution by "CASH&GO" SRL of certain decisions of the National Financial Market Commission, (Decision No. 58/8/2025), according to which the entity was summoned to execute the obligations stipulated in the decisions mentioned in point 1 of the Prenotated Decision, within 10 working days from the date of its communication, and, at the same time, was notified about the application of a coercive fine in the amount of 1,650 conventional units, in case of non-execution of these obligations within the established term.

Not agreeing with Decision No. 1/2/2026, the participant filed a Preliminary Request, through which it requests the annulment of the Contested Decision, as well as the suspension of its execution.

Regarding the request to suspend the execution 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 request, the public authority, ex officio or at the request of the affected person, may suspend the execution thereof until the completion of the preliminary procedure. [...] (3) The suspension of execution of an individual administrative act unfavorable is decided by the authority

competent public authority for resolving the preliminary request. The decision regarding the suspension of execution is taken within 5 working days from the moment of registration, unless the law provides otherwise.".

Under the conditions where the object of the Preliminary Request consists of 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 contains special norms regarding the grounds and conditions for the suspension of execution of an individual administrative act.

Moreover, this approach is also justified by 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 tending to administrative activity regarding specific areas of activity can be regulated by special legislative norms derogating from the provisions of this Code only if this regulation is absolutely necessary and does not contravene the principles of this Code." and "[...] Special legal norms are applicable exclusively to certain categories of social relations or strictly determined subjects. In case of divergence between a general norm and a special norm, which are contained in normative acts of the same level, the special norm is applied.".

In this sense, a priori, it should be noted 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 the Administrative Code No. 116/2018, filing a request for suspension of execution 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) The suspension of execution of acts of the National Commission, other than those provided for 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, filed within the framework of the preliminary procedure, or by the court only at the request of the plaintiff, filed concurrently with the filing of the action, and only if the following conditions are cumulatively met: a) the grounds invoked by the plaintiff in support of the action are pertinent and well-founded and it 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 the suspension of execution of the contested administrative act to avoid causing serious and irreparable harm to the plaintiff's interests; c) the damage that could be caused to the plaintiff exceeds the public interest pursued by issuing the contested administrative act.".

In this case, with reference to the aforementioned legal norms, it is established that the request for suspension of execution of the Contested Decision does not meet the content requirements, stipulated imperatively by the framework law, as the participant did not invoke any ground in support of the suspension of Decision No. 1/2/2026.

Moreover, to satisfy this requirement, the participant was required to prove the grounds for suspension indicated in Art. 23 para. (3) of Law No. 192/1998.

In this regard, it is necessary to record that the suspension of execution of an act administrative implies the temporary interruption of certain activities or provisions executory, undertaken by the supervisory authority, in order to achieve a public interest.

Accordingly, the purpose of the operation of suspending the execution of an administrative act, established by law, consists in offering provisional protection to rights and interests of the person through the application of urgent measures, intended to prevent the imminent occurrence of irreparable damages through the execution, in continuation, of the individual administrative act unfavorable, regarding which there are serious and reasonable suspicions regarding its legality.

Subsequently, in order for the suspension of execution of the contested administrative act to be ordered, the person claiming to be harmed must prove the validity of the request, as well as the fact that the suspension aims to prevent an imminent danger, which exceeds the public interest and which could be irreparable.

In the present case, the participant, requesting the ordering of the suspension of execution of the Contested Decision, did not indicate any ground for suspension, on the basis of which the supervisory authority could conclude that the failure to take the security measure would have the impact provided for by the aforementioned legal norms, as the existence of these conditions is not presumed, but must be proven by the person who requested the suspension of execution of the individual administrative act.

In this context, it should be highlighted that, under the conditions of Art. 23 para. (4) of Law No. 192/1998, the burden of proof of the existence of pertinent and well-founded grounds, as well as the existence of the imminent harm to the interests and rights of the participant is placed on the latter, in this case, these are completely lacking.

Complementarily, it should be specified that the grounds for supporting the illegality of Decision No. 1/2/2026 cannot serve as arguments to support the request for suspension of execution of the Contested Decision, as the purpose pursued by these is absolutely distinct and, consequently, the reasoning must be different.

Correlatively, in the absence of reasoning to support the request for suspension, it should be noted that it does not fall under the conditions for suspension, provided by the Administrative Code in this regard.

In the situation where the entity failed to justify the validity of the request regarding the necessity of suspending the contested administrative act, according to Art. 23 para. (4) of Law No. 192/1998, "[...] Until proof to the contrary, the existence of a public interest in the immediate and uninterrupted execution of the acts of the Commission National is presumed.".

Based on the facts and legal reasons stated above, the request for suspension of execution of Decision No. 1/2/2026 should be rejected.

From the considerations exposed above, on the basis of Art. 18 para. (3), Art. 20 para. (1) and para. (6), Art. 22 para. (3) and Art. 23 para. (3) and para. (4) of Law No. 192/1998 on the National Financial Market Commission, the Administrative 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 request to suspend the execution of Decision of the National Financial Market Commission No. 1/2 dated 06.01.2026 regarding the application of the coercive fine to "CASH&GO" SRL for non-execution of certain decisions of the National Financial Market Commission, filed by "CASH&GO" SRL

is rejected.

through the Preliminary Request dated January 14, 2026 (registered at CNPF with No. 232 on January 15, 2026). 2. This Decision may be contested with an administrative lawsuit, filed at the Chisinau Court, Rascani seat (MD-2068, Chisinau, Kiev 3 St.), together with the individual administrative act, adopted at the conclusion of the preliminary procedure. 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 CNPF (www.cnpf.md).

Dumitru BUDIANSCHI, PRESIDENT