2025-12-02 | 58/2Added · Updated
The National Financial Market Commission of Moldova issued Decision No. 58/2 ruling that OTP Bank SA violated Article 45(4) of Law No. 114/2012 by unilaterally terminating a consumer's banking contracts with only 15 days' notice instead of the legally required two months. The Commission found that while the bank cited sanctions associations, it failed to prove the client violated contractual obligations justifying immediate termination under Article 45(6), and the short notice period breached mandatory statutory requirements. Although the violation was confirmed, no administrative fine was imposed because the specific penalizing legislation entered into force after the bank's actions occurred, rendering retroactive application impossible.
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 2 December 2025 No. 58/2 Regarding the petition registered with the National Financial Market Commission under no. 7004 on 23.09.2025, concerning "OTP Bank" SA
On 23.09.2025, within the framework of the National Financial Market Commission (CNPF), the petition of Mr. [...] (petitioner), registered under no. 7004, was registered, having as its object the actions of "OTP Bank" SA (the bank) regarding the closure of the petitioner's bank accounts.
I. Factual Circumstances
II. Procedural Circumstances 2. By the Order of the CNPF President no. 1011 dated 24.09.2025 regarding the ex officio involvement of "OTP Bank" SA in the administrative procedure, initiated through the petition of Mr. [...], and the suspension of the administrative procedure, the bank was involved in the administrative procedure. 3. By the same Order, the administrative procedure was suspended, on the grounds of the request from the bank, by letter no. 04-5/3859 dated 26.09.2025, for the provision of relevant explanations and justificatory documents relevant to the case. 4. Consequently, on 07.10.2025, the bank submitted to the CNPF the explanations and documents requested (registered at the CNPF under no. 7338). 5. 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, in order to ensure the principle of good faith of the public authority in managing deadlines, by the Order of the CNPF President no. 1145 dated 03.11.2025 regarding the extension of the general term of the administrative procedure, initiated through the petition of Mr. [...], the general term of the administrative procedure was extended by 15 days.
III. Legal Circumstances 10. According to Article 4(21) letter d) of Law no. 192/1998 on the National Financial Market Commission, "(21) Subjects of relations concerning regulation, supervision, and control in the field of consumer rights protection are: d) banks, branches established on the territory of the Republic of Moldova by banks from other states, which operate in accordance with Law no. 202/2017 on banking activity;". 11. In accordance with Article 5(1) of Law no. 114/2012, "(1) This law distinguishes the following categories of payment service providers: a) banks and branches established in the Republic of Moldova by banks from other states, which operate in accordance with Law no. 202/2017 on banking activity;". 12. Under the conditions of Article 45(4) of Law no. 114/2012, "(4) In the event that it is agreed in the framework contract, the payment service provider may unilaterally terminate a framework contract concluded for an indefinite period by transmitting a notice, on paper or other durable medium or in another manner agreed by the parties (e-mail, sms, etc.), at least 2 months in advance.". 13. In accordance with Article 45(6) of Law no. 114/2012, "(6) The provisions of paragraphs (1)-(5) do not apply in the case of termination of the framework contract on the grounds of non-performance of obligations by one of the parties.". 14. According to Article 93(5) of Law no. 114/2012, "(5) Supervision in the field of consumer rights protection falls within the competence of the National Financial Market Commission, which verifies the compliance by the payment service providers indicated in Article 5(1) letters a)–d) with the provisions […] of Chapter IV, […]".
IV. Assessment by the CNPF 15. Analyzing the information from the documents presented by the participants in the administrative procedure, in light of the requirements provided by Law no. 114/2012, the CNPF establishes the following: 15.1. On 18.08.2025, "OTP Bank" SA, by letter no. [...], notified the petitioner about the termination of the business relationship, unilateral termination of the contracts concluded between the parties, and the closure of all bank accounts, products, and services attached thereto. From the content of the notification, it is established that the petitioner was granted a deadline until 02.09.2025, for the completion of procedures related to the closure of accounts and contracted products, a period constituting 15 calendar days from the date of transmission of the notification. 15.2. As the basis for the termination of the contract, the bank invoked the clause provided at point 4.6.4, sixth dash, of the General Conditions, a document representing a framework contract, within the meaning of Law no. 114/2012, which provides that "The Bank reserves the right to immediately terminate relations with the Client: […] if the Client becomes a Sanctioned Person or conducts transactions with sanctioned parties;". In the same vein, according to the framework contract, a sanctioned person represents any of the identified natural and legal persons, entities or organizations whose name/designation is included in the lists published for Sanctions issued by the competent authorities of the European Union, of the Security Council of the United Nations Organization, of the United States of America (including in lists issued by the Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) and the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FINCEN) and the Department of State (OFAC-PLC)), authorities from different countries and, if applicable, by the competent authority of the Republic of Moldova. 15.3. From the materials of the administrative file, it is revealed that, as the reason for the decision to terminate the framework contract with the petitioner, is the Order of the Information and Security Service no. [...] dated 10.06.2025, by which he was included in the list of persons associated with a subject of restrictions, as provided by Law no. 25/2016 on the application of international restrictive measures (Law no. 25/2016). In light of Article 6(4) of Law no. 25/2016, the petitioner was qualified as a person associated with a subject of restrictions, a status which, according to the law, does not equate to the status of a direct subject of restrictions. At the same time, the bank explains the reason for the termination of the framework contract by applying point 4.6.4, dash 1, which stipulates that "The Bank reserves the right to immediately terminate relations with the Client: - in the event that the Client conducts transactions that contravene Legislation and Internal Normative Documents in the field of Prevention and combating of money laundering and terrorist financing;". This explanation cannot be upheld, inasmuch as, according to the extract from the "Minutes of the AML Committee" dated 08.08.2025, the decision to terminate the business relationship with the petitioner is linked to the fact that he was attributed the status of a person associated with a subject of restrictions. 15.4. Furthermore, the bank did not prove that the petitioner conducts transactions with sanctioned parties, such that he would violate a contractual obligation, which would justify the unilateral termination of the framework contract by the bank, on the grounds of Article 45(6) of Law no. 114/2012. 15.5. Thus, although the parties may agree on the bank's right to terminate at any time, unilaterally, a framework contract, concluded for an indefinite period, relating the 15-day period granted to the petitioner to the mandatory provisions of Article 45 (4) of Law no. 114/2012, it is nevertheless established that the bank did not comply with the requirement of transmitting a notice at least 2 months in advance of the date of termination of the framework contract.
Dumitru BUDIANSCHI, PRESIDENT