Order No. 19/1 of 21 April 2026 regarding the preliminary application submitted by Mr. Ivan Jechiu against CNPF letter no. 05-5/724 of 09.03.2026

REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA
NATIONAL COMMISSION OF THE FINANCIAL MARKET
1
ORDER
21 April 2026 No. 19/1
Regarding the Preliminary Application submitted by Mr. Ivan Jechiu, against the letter of the National Commission of the Financial Market no. 05-5/724 dated 09.03.2026

On 26.03.2026, within the framework of the National Commission of the Financial Market (CNPF), the Preliminary Application, submitted by Mr. Ivan Jechiu (the petitioner), was registered (no. 2129), in which the annulment of the decision regarding the conclusion of the administrative procedure, related to petition no. 395, and the resumption of the investigation regarding BC "Moldindconbank" SA (Preliminary Application) were requested.

In this case, in order to ensure a comprehensive, objective, and transparent investigation that would provide the real possibility of analyzing the petitioner's claims, he is hereby notified that the examination of the factual and legal circumstances relevant to the case, in the preliminary order, will be carried out by distinguished executors within the CNPF.

In fact, on 23.01.2026, within the framework of the CNPF, the petition submitted by Mr. Ivan Jechiu was registered (no. 395), in which the verification of the actions/inactions of BC "Moldindconbank" SA was requested, regarding the operation of withdrawing monetary funds in the amount of 30,000 MDL.

As a result of the investigations carried out by the CNPF, based on the materials presented by the parties, the administrative procedure was concluded by the letter no. 05-5/724 dated 09.03.2026, through which the petitioner was informed about the lack of identification by the CNPF of any violations in the actions of BC "Moldindconbank" SA.

Not being in agreement with the aforementioned closing letter, the petitioner submitted a Preliminary Application.

By the Disposition of the President of the CNPF no. 164 dated 07.04.2026 regarding the suspension of the deadline of the preliminary procedure, initiated by the Preliminary Application submitted by Mr. Ivan Jechiu, the preliminary procedure was suspended until 15.04.2026.

In law, according to art. 19 of the Administrative Code, "The Preliminary Application is the institution that provides a pre-litigation path for the resolution of administrative disputes," and, in accordance with the provisions of art. 162 para. (1) and para. (3) lit. a) and lit. b) of the same law, "(1) The preliminary procedure aims to verify the legality of individual administrative acts.[...] (3) The Preliminary Application may be directed towards: a) the annulment in whole or in part of an illegal or null individual administrative act; b) the issuance of an individual administrative act."

2
In accordance with art. 20 of the Administrative Code, "If a legitimate right or a freedom established by law is violated by an administrative activity, this right may be claimed through an action in administrative litigation, [...]", and according to art. 17, "A violated right is any right or freedom established by law to which/which is affected by administrative activity."

Under the conditions of art. 166 of the Administrative Code, "The Preliminary Application 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 art. 167 para. (1) of the same law, "(1) If the Preliminary Application is considered 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."

In this case, art. 78 para. (1) of the Administrative Code establishes that "(1) The administrative procedure is concluded by performing an administrative operation or by issuing an individual administrative act, respectively, by concluding an administrative contract."

At the same time, according to art. 15 of the Administrative Code, administrative operations are defined as "[...] manifestations of will or activities of public authorities that do not produce legal effects per se. Administrative operations can only be contested simultaneously with the individual administrative act, with the exception of executive administrative operations or those directed against a third party." Thus, it is essential to administrative operations that they do not produce legal effects.

In this instance, the lack of legal effects of administrative operations implies the lack of coercive character and the fact that they do not create, modify, or extinguish a legal relationship or rights and obligations of the parties to the legal relationship; rather, in the case of concluding administrative procedures, administrative operations, similar to the one in this case, constitute only a factual exposition.

Complementarily, under the conditions of art. 166 of the Administrative Code, "The Preliminary Application may be submitted only if the person claims rights violated by the issuance or rejection of the issuance of an individual administrative act," and according to art. 17 of the same law, "A violated right is any right or freedom established by law to which/which is affected by administrative activity."

On the subject, from the systematic interpretation of both art. 17 and art. 166, as well as art. 20 and art. 207 of the Administrative Code, it results that the admissibility of a preliminary application is determined by the claim of a violated right through administrative activity.

In this case, the contested act does not reveal rights or obligations of the petitioner.

Accordingly, the Preliminary Application does not fall under and does not justify the existence of a violated right, as the latter is absent due to the lack of the constraining effect of the administrative operation on him.

The systematic interpretation of the Administrative Code reveals that the purpose of the preliminary procedure also includes the remediation by the public authority of the previously admitted flawed action, on procedural grounds or on the application of substantive norms. Based on discretionary right, the CNPF decides on the opportunity and measure of intervention, respectively, has a margin of appreciation and has the right to choose between several possible solutions corresponding to the purpose of the law when applying a legal provision.

3
At the same time, it is noted that, in examining the petition and in establishing the institutional position regarding it, the CNPF took into account all factual circumstances presented by the participants in the administrative procedure, which are supported by evidentiary support.

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

1. Regarding the alleged lack of objectivity of technical checks and the lack of collection documents, the CNPF considers the petitioner's claims to be unfounded, based on the fact that, within the administrative procedure, the transaction logs of the ATM were analyzed, which represent primary and objective technical sources of evidence of operations performed, and these did not indicate any error, interruption, or malfunction in the processing of transactions.

2. Regarding the detailed calculation of banknotes presented by the petitioner, it should be pointed out that this is not supported by evidence and contradicts the technical data generated by ATM systems, which indicate the issuance of an identical number of banknotes for each transaction.

In the absence of evidence indicating the contrary, this calculation represents a unilateral assessment that cannot overturn the presumption of correctness of the technical data.

3. Regarding the verification of cash balances in the ATM, it should be recorded that no surpluses were identified, which reasonably excludes the hypothesis of non-issuance of a part of the sum. In the absence of identified discrepancies, the request for collection documents appears to be lacking probative relevance, as there are no indications justifying the extension of the checks.

Accordingly, all checks performed (transaction logs, technical checks, ATM balances, and video recordings) are consistent and do not indicate certain deviations. Therefore, the request for additional evidence, in the absence of indications requiring such a request, is not necessary for the resolution of the case.

4. Regarding the alleged contradictions of the evidence/video recordings and the petitioner's claim regarding the "different volume" of banknotes, it should be emphasized that these involve a subjective character and cannot prevail over the existing objective technical data.

The analyzed video recordings confirm that the cash was withdrawn in full by the petitioner, without any malfunctions observed in the issuance process. At the same time, the alleged incomplete issuance cannot be retained under the conditions that it has a declarative character and is refuted by technical evidence.

5. Regarding the alleged violation of the right to information, namely the aspects invoked regarding the lack of a response from the bank, it should be mentioned that these do not correspond to reality, as, from the materials of the administrative file, it is clearly attested that BC "Moldindconbank" SA provided a response to the petitioner's email address no. 00/12/27-000698 on 28.01.2026.

In general, the arguments formulated by Mr. Ivan Jechiu are not of a nature to combat the findings established within the administrative procedure and do not reveal the existence of new or previously unexamined circumstances and, consequently, cannot lead to the admission of the Preliminary Application.

Regarding the preliminary procedure, it should be noted that, by letter no. 06-5/1183 dated 07.04.2026, the petitioner was informed, in accordance with the provisions of art. 94 para. (2) of the Administrative Code, about the exercise of the right to be heard, in relation to the circumstances relevant to the act to be adopted in

4 the context of the Preliminary Application, as well as about the fact that the hearing is to be carried out in writing, being offered the right to submit an opinion, as a hearing, to the CNPF, until 15.07.2025 inclusive.

Subsequently, within the term granted to express himself, no response was registered from the petitioner.

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 regarding the National Commission of the Financial Market, Law no. 105/2003 regarding consumer protection, art. 17, art. 19, art. 162 para. (1) and para. (3) lit. a), lit. b), art. 166, art. 167 para. (1) and para. (3), art. 169 of the Administrative Code and pts. 16 and pts. 19 of the Regulation regarding the organization and functioning of the National Commission of the Financial Market (CNPF Order no. 57/11/2022),

The National Commission of the Financial Market ORDERS:

1. The Preliminary Application, submitted by Mr. Ivan Jechiu, against the letter of the National Commission of the Financial Market no. 05-5/724 dated 09.03.2026
   (registered at the CNPF with no. 2129 on 26.03.2026) is rejected.

2. This Order may be contested with an action in administrative litigation, submitted to the Chișinău Court, Râșcani seat (MD-2068, Chișinău city, Kiev 3 street), within 30 days from the date of its communication.

3. This Order 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