Regarding the requests submitted by OCN „MOGO LOANS” SRL, on 22.07.2026 and 23.07.2026

REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA
NATIONAL COMMISSION FOR THE FINANCIAL MARKET bd. Ștefan cel Mare și Sfânt, no. 77, mun. Chișinău, MD 2012, tel: (373 22) 859 401, www.cnpf.md, e-mail: office@cnpf.md DECISION August 10, 2026 No. 39/4 Regarding the requests submitted by OCN „MOGO LOANS” SRL, on 22.07.2026 and 23.07.2026

On 22.07.2026, within the National Commission for the Financial Market (CNPF), Request no. 6231 was registered, concerning the issuance of missing documents and information from the administrative file (Request no. 1), submitted by OCN „MOGO LOANS” SRL (petitioner), requesting the provision, in electronic format, to the address info@mogo.md, of information and duly certified copies of the documents, enumerated/mentioned/specified in the 9 points of the request, related to CNPF Decision no. 10/1 of 24.02.2026 regarding the summons for OCN „MOGO LOANS” SRL to execute the prescriptions from National Commission for the Financial Market Decision no. 28/3 of 09.06.2025 regarding the results of the thematic control, carried out within OCN „MOGO LOANS” SRL (Decision no. 10/1/2026). Additionally, on 23.07.2026, the petitioner submitted 7 requests for information provision (registered with CNPF under no. 6275), by which it requests the provision, in electronic format, to the address info@mogo.md or to the physical address (bd. Ștefan cel Mare și Sfânt no. 65, office 506, mun. Chișinău) of information and confirmatory documents, duly certified to confirm their conformity with the original, concerning the administrative control procedure, initiated by CNPF Decision no. 13/2 of 11.03.2025 regarding the thematic control carried out within OCN „MOGO LOANS” SRL (Decision no. 13/2/2025) and finalized by CNPF Decision no. 28/3 of 09.06.2025 regarding the results of the thematic control, carried out within OCN „MOGO LOANS” SRL (Decision no. 28/3/2025). In this case, the requests submitted by the petitioner are to be examined through the legal regime, established by Law no. 148/2023 on access to public interest information (Law no. 148/2023). Consequently, according to art. 18 of Law no. 148/2023, “If the applicant submits several requests to an information provider, the information provider may consolidate them and provide the applicant with a single response, which will refer to all submitted requests.” Complementarily, art. 13 para. (3) of Law no. 148/2023, specifies that the provisions of the Administrative Code apply only insofar as they do not contravene the requirements of the aforementioned law.

Respectively, Law no. 148/2023 establishes a special term, of 10 days, within which the administrative procedure for examining requests is to be finalized and which can be extended by another 7 days.
On the subject, by CNPF President's Order no. 531 of 29.07.2026 regarding the consolidation of requests submitted by OCN „MOGO LOANS” SRL, on 22.07.2026 and 23.07.2026, and the extension of the deadline for resolving the requests, the petitioner's requests were consolidated, and their resolution deadline was extended until 08.08.2026.
Legally, in accordance with art. 13 para. (1) and para. (2) of Law no. 148/2023, “(1) Any natural or legal person (hereinafter – applicant) has the right to request and obtain public interest information under the conditions of the law, by submitting a request for communication of public interest information (hereinafter – request). (2) Information providers are obliged to communicate the requested public interest information, under the conditions of the law.”
According to art. 23 para. (1) lit. a) of Law no. 148/2023, “(1) The request is rejected, in whole or in part, if: a) the information provider does not possess the requested information, does not know if it is in the possession of another information provider, and there are no circumstances for redirection;”.
Subsequently, according to art. 24 para. (1) and para. (3) of Law no. 148/2023, “(1) The communication of public interest information is refused, in whole or in part, if the requested information constitutes information with limited accessibility according to art. 8. [...] (3) If only part of the requested information constitutes information with limited accessibility, the information provider partially refuses the communication of information, according to para. (1) and (2), and is obliged to communicate the information to which access cannot be limited.”
In turn, art. 8 para. (1) of Law no. 148/2023 states that “(1) Access to public interest information may be limited in accordance with the proportionality criterion provided in art. 9 if the disclosure of the information will prejudice: a) public safety; b) international relations; c) the prevention or detection of crimes or contraventions; d) the conduct of criminal prosecution; e) the conduct of administrative or judicial proceedings; f) the protection of personal data; g) intellectual property rights; h) trade secrets.”
Correlatively, under the conditions of art. 24 para. (3) of Law no. 148/2023, “(3) If only part of the requested information constitutes information with limited accessibility, the information provider partially refuses the communication of information, according to para. (1) and (2), and is obliged to communicate the information to which access cannot be limited.”
In this case, it needs to be mentioned that the petitioner requests several pieces of information and documents, formulated, specifically, in the 8 submitted requests. To avoid any ambiguity and precisely identify the request, to which reference is made in the content of this decision, each of them will be individualized by the name of the electronic file in which it was transmitted, as follows:
1) CNPF query regarding Expert Council (Request no. 2);
2) CNPF query Audit adoption (Request no. 3);
3) CNPF query Field control (Request no. 4);
4) query regarding obtaining analysis of evidence public consultation (Request no. 5);
5) query regarding minutes of witness hearings by CNPF (Request no. 6);

6) query regarding selection Plan 2025 selection methodology (Request no. 7);
7) query Industry evidence equal treatment (Request no. 8).
In the process of resolving access to information requests, CNPF bases its discretionary right on the following premises. When examining the formulated requests, CNPF took into account the fundamental principle enshrined in art. 3 of Law no. 148/2023, according to which all information held by information providers is presumed to be public, as well as the right of any natural or legal person to have access to public interest information, provided for in art. 6 of the same law. At the same time, in the sense of art. 16 para. (3) of Law no. 148/2023, the authority does not condition the exercise of the right of access on demonstrating a concrete personal or public interest and does not base this decision, in the part of the refusal, on the lack of justification from the applicant. However, the fact that the applicant is not obliged to justify the purpose of the request does not mean that any action formulated as an access to information request automatically generates the obligation of the provider to produce any result requested by the person. The object and limits of the provider's obligation are determined by the legal notion of “public interest information” itself, as well as by the concrete nature of the requested information. It is contextually noted that the examination of submitted requests cannot start from the presumption that any operation performed in professional activity automatically generated documented information about that operation. On the contrary, to respond to the request, it would be necessary to retrospectively identify the operations performed, interview or consult the persons who carried them out, reconstruct the work stages, and subsequently formalize them into a new response or document. Such an activity would transform the right of access to public interest information into an obligation to retrospectively document internal activity. Moreover, the purpose of the law is to ensure access to public interest information held by the provider and not to establish a general obligation to subsequently document any material or intellectual operation that has been carried out within its activity. The fact that certain operations are not protocolled or formalized distinctly does not, in itself, constitute a violation of the legislation on access to public interest information, nor does it subsequently create the obligation to transform them into documented information at the request of a person. Therefore, when the applicant requests not existing documents, but the description, systematization or reconstruction of work operations that have not been distinctly recorded, the request implies the creation of new information and cannot be equated with the request for existing information held by the authority. According to art. 4 of Law no. 148/2023, public interest information is all information held by information providers, regardless of the storage medium. Thus, the provision of information is conditioned by the premise of the
existence of the information and its possession by the provider. Therefore, a distinction must be made between, on the one hand, existing information held by the authority, even if it is in different documents, unsystematized or requires identification from multiple sources, and, on the other hand, an informational result that does not exist in the authority's possession and would have to be created later, as a result of the request. This distinction also results from art. 24 para. (4) of Law no. 148/2023, according to

which the provider cannot refuse to communicate information simply because it is found in different documents or on different storage media, or because the requested information is not systematized. The right of access to information must be exercised within the purpose for which it was established — ensuring the transparency of public sector activity and allowing access to public interest information — and cannot be transformed into an instrument by which the provider is obliged to carry out, at the request of a person, investigations, analyses or reconstructions that do not result from existing records.
When resolving the requests in question, CNPF notes, however, that the obligation to identify existing information (which results from the law) is not equivalent to the obligation to produce, at the applicant's request, analyses, evaluations, classifications, syntheses, explanations, conclusions or reconstructions that do not exist as such in the provider's records. Thus, the fact that certain information could be obtained by processing existing information does not, in itself, mean that the resulting information already exists and is held by the provider. This premise is all the more important as, in its absence, the right of access to information could be transformed into an unlimited obligation of the provider to carry out, at the request of any person, research, analysis and processing activities of its own records, to the detriment of its own administrative activity carried out in the exercise of the mandate prescribed by law. Regarding requests that refer in one form or another to materials that would reflect the way in which designated persons within the authority reached the conclusions formulated in administrative procedures, CNPF distinguishes between documents that exist and reflect the activity actually carried out and the explanation or reconstruction of professional reasoning. Insofar as the applicant claims a description of the concrete manner in which designated persons analyzed the information, of the intellectual stages followed, of the reasons why they attributed a certain relevance to some elements, of the criteria concretely applied in an individual situation or of the professional reasoning that led to a certain conclusion, and such elements are not recorded in an existing document, the request implies the creation of a new explanation. Law no. 148/2023 does not establish the obligation of the provider to subsequently reconstruct, at the applicant's request, the intellectual process that formed the basis of an administrative finding. Subsequently, by way of example, the request for a list of all decisions, in which granting commissions or equivalent commissions and fees were examined, with reference to art. 15 para. (7) of Law no. 202/2013 in the version in force on the date of issuance of Decision no. 28/3 of 09.06.2025, with the attachment of the respective decisions, as well as the confirmation of the application of the same sanction or measure to other entities in similar situations, must be treated as follows. Although the possession of the respective decisions constitutes public interest information, the request imposes subsequent actions on the part of CNPF for the provision of a response to the formulated requests. The precondition of the formulated request imposes individual examination of files and decisions, establishing whether the norm was or was not analyzed in each case and the subsequent creation of a list of relevant decisions, which places the formulated request in the realm of non-existent information that
needs to be generated. The same principle applies to all similar requests where, although seemingly requesting existing information, its provision imposes a distinct and extensive analysis (including determined by the volumetry of administrative activity). In this hypothesis, the request implies a new activity of identifying, examining and classifying all cases according to a criterion that is not reflected in a pre-existing record.

Correlatively, the request for register extracts, URLs and other similar data, was examined through the lens of the lack of a consolidated record of these data, which would require extraction and correlation of technical data for provision, archive verification, successive examination of records or retroactive reconstruction of the publication moment, which does not represent pre-existing information held by CNPF.
Regarding the minutes of the meetings during which certain subjects were examined, it is noted that the respective information cannot be provided taking into account the necessity of reconstructing non-existent elements that presume the creation of new information, by transposing the aspects that were discussed, the reasons why the participants in the meeting formulated certain positions or the reconstruction of other elements that were not recorded in the minutes.
In the same vein, it should be mentioned that some categories of information mentioned in the request are materialized through the documents and reports submitted to CNPF by the petitioner, and, during the examination, CNPF analyzed and utilized the information presented in the form and classification in which it was provided, without establishing or applying its own methodology for classifying contracts.
The cumulative arguments presented, in the process of exercising CNPF's discretionary right, determine the conclusion of the impossibility of providing the information requested in Request no. 1 point 4), partially in points 6) and 7), Request no. 4 point 4), Request no. 5 partially in points 1)-2), points 4)-5), Request no. 6, partially in points 3)-4), points 6)-7), points 10)-11), Request no. 8 points 1)-4).
Complementary to what has been noted, CNPF bases this decision on the fact that although the applicant's right to access information including for preparing defense and using procedural and evidentiary means provided by law, is undeniable, nevertheless a part of the requests aim to obtain explanations, analyses and reconstructions regarding the way in which CNPF exercised its competence and discretionary power within administrative procedures that constitute already object of judicial review. Satisfying such requests, insofar as it would involve the elaboration of non-existent materials, would transform the mechanism of access to information into a parallel mechanism for investigating the legality and merits of administrative acts. Moreover, the control of the legality of administrative acts and the verification of compliance with the limits of discretionary competence belong to the competent court examining the administrative contentious action within the judicial procedure established by law. This does not mean that the party cannot analyze or criticize the authority's discretion, but that the authority cannot be obliged, through the mechanism of access to information, to produce outside the procedural framework a new analysis or reconstruction of its own exercise of discretion, when such information does not exist as such. Therefore, the right of access to information and the right to defense in a dispute are distinct rights. The first allows obtaining existing information held by the provider; the second is exercised through the procedural and evidentiary means provided by procedural legislation. The authority's obligation to communicate the documents and information it holds cannot be confused with the obligation to create, at the request of a party, additional materials intended for evaluating in the context of the dispute the way in which the authority exercised its duties.

Under the exposed conditions, it is concluded that it is impossible to provide the information partially reflected in Request no. 6 points 3)-4), point 6), point 10), point 12).
At the same time, under the conditions of art. 23 para. (1) lit. a) of Law no. 148/2023, CNPF is unable to provide the information found in Request no. 1 points 1), 3), 5), 7)-9), Request no. 2 points 1)-2) and 4)-8), Request no. 3 points 1)-4), Request no. 4 points 1), 3)-4), Request no. 5 point 6), Request no. 6 points 1)-2) and point 11), Request no. 7 points 1)-2).
Additionally, with reference to the internal norms related to secretarial work (Request no. 1 point 7)), it is noted that these do not exclusively constitute descriptive information about the authority's activity, but comprise a set of internal rules and instruments related to the organization, registration, distribution, circulation, verification, record-keeping, and control of documents, as well as models of acts and structural elements used in the authority's activity. To this extent, the full disclosure of the documentation would allow a detailed reconstruction of the internal mechanisms for managing and controlling documents, including document flows, processing stages, and control points established at the authority level. Unconditional provision of such information to third parties is susceptible, depending on its concrete content, to vulnerabilize the authority's internal mechanisms, as well as to publicly expose elements of the authority's intellectual property, and consequently to prejudice the safety of the authority's activity, which is why they cannot be provided. Additionally, for clarifying technical aspects, the following specific arguments are noted. Extracts from the minutes of the Board of Directors (CA) meetings fully reproduce the part which refers to the examination of the relevant draft decision. At the same time, both the minutes of the CA meetings and extracts from them, indicate the closed or public nature of the meeting, as well as the type of meeting, implicitly ordinary or extraordinary. Thus, directly in relation to the request from Request no. 1 point 1, it is noted that the administrative file, which includes Decision no. 10/1 of 24.02.2026 regarding the summons for OCN „MOGO LOANS” SRL to execute the prescriptions from National Commission for the Financial Market Decision no. 28/3 of 09.06.2025 regarding the results of the thematic control, carried out within OCN „MOGO LOANS” SRL (Decision no. 10/1/2026), contains the extract from the minutes of CA meeting no. 10 of 24.02.2026 (minutes no. 10/24.02.2026), which fully reproduces the part, which refers to the examination of the draft decision “Regarding the summons for OCN „MOGO LOANS” SRL to execute the prescriptions from National Commission for the Financial Market Decision no. 28/3 of 09.06.2025 regarding the results of the thematic control, carried out within OCN „MOGO LOANS” SRL”. At the same time, it is specified that, to the minutes of the CA meeting are annexed exclusively the documents and records expressly mentioned in its content. In this case, as mentioned in the extract from minutes no. 10/24.02.2026, Decision no. 10/1/24.02.2026, adopted within

of the Board of Directors meeting (which was notified to the petitioner and can be viewed by accessing the following link: https://www.cnpf.md/ro/decisions), as well as a copy of the informational note on the draft Decision No. 10/1/24.02.2026. The second copy of the informational note is part of the administrative file, which includes Decision No. 10/1/2026. Likewise, the latter contains both the draft Decision No. 10/1/2026, submitted at the Board meeting, and the original Decision No. 10/1/2026.
Consequently, there are no other documents or records attached to the minutes No. 10/24.02.2026.
Regarding the ordinary or extraordinary, respectively public or closed nature of the Board meeting, it is specified that minutes No. 10/24.02.2026 do not contain any mention of it being held in an extraordinary or closed regime. Therefore, the meeting had an ordinary and public character.
With regard to the requests formulated in Request No. 2, concerning the advisory body "Expert Council", it is noted that, according to Art. 16 of Law No. 192/1998, "In addition to the National Commission, an advisory body – the Expert Council – may be established. The method of establishment, composition, and competencies of this body are determined by the National Commission". From the optional nature of establishing such an advisory body, it follows that its existence does not represent a condition for the exercise of the legal competencies of CNPF. At the same time, it is noted that, at the current moment, the advisory body "Expert Council" is not established within CNPF. With regard to item 3), the internal regulation of CNPF was approved by CNPF Decision No. 57/11 dated 01.11.2022 regarding the approval of the Regulation on the organization and functioning of the National Financial Market Commission, published in the Official Monitor of the Republic of Moldova No. 349-361 of 11.11.2022, art. 1277. Likewise, it can be viewed by accessing the following link: https://www.cnpf.md/ro/general-6508.html, in the "Decisions" section. With regard to item 4), it is confirmed that, within the thematic control regarding OCN "MOGO LOANS" SRL, CNPF did not contract and did not dispose of the contracting of specialized services in the sense of Art. 17 para. (1) of Law No. 192/1998. With regard to the requests formulated in Request No. 5:
With regard to item 1) and item 2), information regarding the publication, for public consultation, of the draft Control Activity Plan of CNPF for the year 2025 is contained in position 4 of the table, which can be viewed by accessing the following link: https://www.cnpf.md/ro/general-6480.html.
With regard to item 3), CNPF communicates that, within the public consultation of the draft Control Activity Plan, no recommendations have been received from the public. With regard to item 4), the Control Activity Plan of the National Financial Market Commission for the year 2025 was published on the official website of CNPF and can be viewed by accessing the following link: https://www.cnpf.md/ro/plan-de-activitate-6335.html.
With regard to item 6), it should be specified that the advisory opinion of the Ministry of Justice is requested in the case of drafting a draft normative act. In this case, since Decision No. 13/1/2025 does not have a normative character, the advisory opinion of the Ministry of Justice was not requested for its drafting and adoption.
With reference to the request in Request No. 8 item 5, it is communicated that, on the official website of CNPF, in the Guides and Opinions section, "Advisory Opinion

regarding the application of certain provisions of Law No. 93/2022 on the modification and completion of certain normative acts" was published, which can be viewed by accessing the link https://www.cnpf.md/ro/creditare-6518.html.
From the considerations stated above, on the basis of Art. 20 para. (1) of Law No. 192/1998 on the National Financial Market Commission, Art. 8 para. (1) lit. e) and para. (2), Art. 9 and Art. 24 of Law No. 148/2023 on access to information of public interest, 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 applications submitted by OCN "MOGO LOANS" SRL (registered at CNPF with No. 6231 on 22.07.2026 and with No. 6275 on 23.07.2026) are partially accepted.
2. The applications submitted by OCN "MOGO LOANS" SRL (registered at CNPF with No. 6231 on 22.07.2026 and with No. 6275 on 23.07.2026) are partially refused, regarding the provision of the information mentioned in the reasoning part of this Decision.
3. This Decision may be contested with an administrative litigation action, submitted to the Chisinau Court, Rascani branch (MD-2068, Chisinau city, Kiev 3 street), within 30 days from the date of its communication.
4. 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