Anti‑Corruption and Integrity Outlook 2026: Moldova
Table of contents
Moldova’s National Integrity and Anticorruption Strategy for 2017-2023 was adopted by Parliament on 30 March 2017, and subsequently extended to 2023 through Parliament Decision No. 241 of 24 December 2021. The National Integrity and Anti-Corruption Programme (2024-2028) is currently in place and builds upon the National Integrity and Anti-Corruption Strategy (2017-2023). The Secretariat within the National Anti-Corruption Centre oversees implementation of the strategy.
Oversight of political finance is the responsibility of the Central Electoral Commission, with the Court of Accounts auditing the use of funds allocated to political parties. Conflict of interest management provisions are provided under the Law No. 133/2016 on the Declaration of Assets and Personal Interests and the National Integrity Authority is tasked with supervising the resolution of public officials’ conflicts of interests by heads of the public organisations. Oversight of access to public information is shared among several entities, including the Ombudsman and the State Chancellery, but neither entity is a dedicated supervisory body. Moldova has no lobbying regulation; hence no institution is mandated to oversee this area.
Law 544/1995 on the Status of Judges provides for judicial integrity in Moldova. Judicial candidates are appointed by the President of the Republic through a competitive selection process, upon the proposal of the Superior Council of Magistracy. The prosecutorial career is governed by Law No. 3/2016 on the Public Prosecution Service. Law No. 158/2008 sets forth the disciplinary procedure for civil servants.
Note: 2025 and 2020 data or latest year available.
Source: OECD Public Integrity Indicators Database (data extracted on 7 March 2026).
Data on where Moldova’s integrity system is strongest and could be most improved can be found at the link below:
Note: 2025 data or latest year available.
Source: OECD Public Integrity Indicators Database (data extracted on 7 March 2026).
Moldova fulfils 53% of regulatory criteria on the strength of strategic framework and 70% of criteria on practice, compared to the OECD averages of 38% and 32%, respectively.
Moldova’s National Integrity and Anticorruption Strategy for 2017-2023 was adopted by Parliament on 30 March 2017, and subsequently extended to 2023 through Parliament Decision No. 241 of 24 December 2021. The National Integrity and Anti-Corruption Programme (2024-2028) is currently in place and builds upon the National Integrity and Anti-Corruption Strategy (2017-2023).
The National Integrity and Anti-Corruption Strategy for 2017-2023 contains objectives to mitigate public integrity risks in human resource management, the private sector, and fraud and corruption across the public sector. The Strategy was informed by a comprehensive situation analysis, and mandatory institutional and public consultation. Two action plans (2017-2020 and 2021-2023) guided. The latter incorporates a range of data sources and identifies lead organisations for each activity. However, while the strategy contains outcome-level indicators, it did not set target values.
The Secretariat of the monitoring groups is responsible for coordinating the implementation, monitoring, reporting, and evaluation of the National Integrity and Anti-Corruption Strategy (2017–2023). Monitoring reports for both the 2017–2020 and 2021–2023 action plans outline progress against established indicators and baseline targets, as well as provide a table of activities and corresponding implementation rates. Current strategies have defined final implementation evaluations as specific activities. Notably, both the National Integrity and Anti-Corruption Programme for 2024–2028 and the Development Programme of Public Procurement include dedicated sections on final evaluation arrangements. However, the action plan for the strategy does not include estimates for capital and operational expenditures, nor does it identify additional costs for specific activities.
Note: 2025 data or latest year available.
Source: OECD Public Integrity Indicators Database (data extracted on 7 March 2026).
Moldova fulfils 0% of criteria on lobbying regulations, and 0% on practice, compared to the OECD average of 43% and 38%, respectively.
These results reflect the absence of a regulatory framework governing lobbying activities and highlight the lack of key mechanisms to ensure transparency and oversight. Currently, there is no definition of lobbying or lobbyists, and no designated supervisory authority within the central government responsible for monitoring lobbying practices. Tools for registering lobbying activities are not available, and there is no system in place for disclosing lobbying-related information or investigating cases of non-compliance.
Moreover, the legal framework does not include cooling-off periods for public officials or lobbyists - measures that are typically introduced to safeguard the integrity of public decision-making and prevent undue influence.
The legal framework requires legal entities to obtain, hold and submit information on their beneficial owners. Since 2018, a central register of beneficial owners has been established and maintained by the state registration authority. However, the information on beneficial ownership is not publicly accessible.
Note: 2025 data or latest year available.
Source: OECD Public Integrity Indicators Database (data extracted on 7 March 2026).
Moldova fulfils 89% of criteria on conflict of interest regulations, and 89% on practice, compared to the OECD average of 80% for regulation and 45% for implementation.
Moldova’s Law No.158/2008 on state functions and the status of civil servants establishes a list of incompatibilities between public functions and other public or private activities, while Law No.82/2017 on integrity defines circumstances and relationships that can lead to conflict-of-interest situations for public officials and establish the obligation to manage them.
Additionally, Law No.133/2016 on the declaration of assets and personal interests obliges public officials, including all elected officials, judges, and civil servants to submit interest declarations.
The National Integrity Authority applies a risk-based approach to verifying the content of these declarations and issues recommendations for resolving conflict-of-interest situations. Furthermore, a range of sanctions has been issued over the past three years in cases of non-compliance with disclosure obligations, non-management or non-resolution of conflict-of-interest situations.
Note: 2025 data or latest year available.
Source: OECD Public Integrity Indicators Database (data extracted on 7 March 2026).
Moldova fulfils 90% of criteria on political finance regulations, and 100% on practice, compared to the OECD average of 76% and 58%, respectively.
Moldova’s Law No.325/2022 (Electoral Code) and Law No.294/2007 on political parties form the country’s primary legal framework on political finance. These laws prohibit anonymous donations and contributions from foreign states, foreign enterprises and state-owned enterprises. While there are limits on individual contributions to electoral campaign expenses for parties and candidates, these limits do not apply to third parties.
The Central Electoral Commission is the main independent body mandated to oversee the financing of political parties and election campaigns. According to the 2023 Annual Report of the Commission, all political parties represented in Parliament have submitted their annual accounts within the timelines defined by national legislation over the past five years and election-related accounts within the required timelines during the past two election cycles.
Note: 2025 data or latest year available.
Source: OECD Public Integrity Indicators Database (data extracted on 7 March 2026).
Moldova fulfils 78% of criteria on access to public information regulations, and 54% on practice, while the OECD average is 72% and 62%, respectively.
Moldova’s Law No.148/2023 on access to information of public interest grants the right of access to information for any natural or legal person under the forms and conditions outlined and includes private entities carrying out public duties as holders of public information. Restrictions to access public information are limited to those listed by law and are consistent with the international standards of the Tromsø Convention on Access to Public Information, ratified by Moldova in 2016.
Oversight responsibilities are distributed among the Ombudsman, the State Chancellery, and other institutions. Government Decision No. 0701/2014 on approval of methodology for publishing open government data designates the State Chancellery as the coordinating agency responsible for monitoring open data policy implementation at the central government level.
In practice, Moldova proactively publishes numerous key integrity-related datasets, including on the agendas and minutes of government sessions, consolidated versions of primary laws, public procurement data, the business register, and interest declarations. Key datasets not publicly available are the land register, aggregated data on access to information requests, and ministers’ agendas.
Note: 2025 data or latest year available.
Source: OECD Public Integrity Indicators Database (data extracted on 7 March 2026).
Moldova fulfils 100% of criteria on access to judicial integrity safeguards, and 64% on practice, while the OECD average is 66% and 45%, respectively. Against the backdrop of low public confidence and international guidance for reforms, for the past decade, Moldova has worked on improving its regulatory and institutional framework for the judiciary, including on integrity.
Law 544/1995 on the Status of Judges guarantees judges’ tenure until retirement, term expiry, or lawful dismissal on objective grounds. Law No. 147/2023, together with Law No. 544/1995, sets out merit-based selection and promotion procedures, including written tests. Judges and magistrates of the Supreme Court of Justice are appointed by the President of the Republic after a competitive process, on the proposal of the Superior Council of Magistracy, which is comprised of six career judges and six lay members. Decisions on the selection and promotion of judges may be appealed on both substantive and procedural grounds before the Supreme Court of Justice.
Conflict-of-interest rules for judges are set by Law No. 133/2016 and Law No. 544/1995 on the status of judges. Rules set out incompatibilities with the judicial office and judges and magistrates are required to submit declarations of both assets and interests upon appointment, renewal, or change of position. The National Integrity Authority receives, verifies and publishes asset and interest declarations.
Mechanisms for reporting misconduct are established under Law No. 165 of 2023 on Whistleblowers, and internal reporting channels are in place for courts of all instances. All newly appointed staff of the Court’s Secretariat and judges receive in-house training on personal data protection, delivered by selected experts or through courses organised by the National Institute of Justice. However, no equivalent training is provided on confidentiality. The National Anti‑Corruption Centre provides online whistleblower information and reporting channels, but these resources do not explain how to report judicial misconduct.
Note: 2025 data or latest year available.
Source: OECD Public Integrity Indicators Database (data extracted on 7 March 2026).
Moldova fulfils 97% of criteria on prosecutorial integrity regulations, and 53% on practice, while the OECD average is 66% and 52%, respectively.
Law No. 3/2016 establishes merit-based and objective procedures selecting and promoting prosecutors. The competitive selection procedure does not apply to Deputy Prosecutor General appointments, which are made by the Prosecutor General with the written consent of the Superior Council of Prosecutors, based solely on verifying eligibility conditions. In practice, however, the Council conducts a substantive assessment, including interviewing candidates, reviewing their managerial vision, and deliberating before granting or denying consent, even though the legal framework does not require an interview phase. The law also guarantees candidates the right to challenge decisions on selection, appointment, and promotion.
Law No. 3/2016 sets out objective grounds for dismissal and both the Code of Criminal Procedure and Law No. 133/2016 regulate conflicts of interest, defining the circumstances and relationships that may lead to such situations. Prosecutors are required to recuse themselves if involved in a conflict of interest, and institutional mechanisms are in place to address these cases. Prosecutorial decisions are subject to appeal: decisions on criminal investigations and special activities can be appealed first to the issuing prosecutor, while specific actions like authorising prosecutions, measures, or closing cases without the accused are subject to judicial review by the investigative judge.
Law No. 165/2023 requires prosecutors’ offices to establish internal reporting channels and provides safeguards against retaliation. The Prosecutor’s Office has set up internal mechanisms for reporting violations and designated a responsible person to register whistleblower disclosures in a dedicated register. The National Anti‑Corruption Centre provides online whistleblower information and reporting channels, but these resources do not explain how to report prosecutorial misconduct.
Note: 2025 data or latest year available.
Source: OECD Public Integrity Indicators Database (data extracted on 7 March 2026).
Moldova fulfils 75% of criteria for regulations on disciplinary systems for civil servants, and 17% on practice, while the OECD average is 66% and 22%, respectively.
Law No. 158/2008 outlines the disciplinary procedure for civil servants, defining a disciplinary offence as any violation of official duties. It establishes sanctions such as reprimand, suspension, and demotion, while introducing a statute of limitations for disciplinary action. Law No. 158/2008 allows civil servants to challenge disciplinary sanctions directly in court without prior procedures as reflected in Government Decision No. 201 of 11 March 2009. It also requires officials handling disciplinary cases to notify judicial or law enforcement authorities if criminal conduct is suspected.
Moreover, each central government body maintains its own case management system for disciplinary cases and proceedings. Although the number of disciplinary procedures against civil servants is published in the State Chancellery’s Annual Reports (2023 report), the report is not presented in a user-friendly manner, as it lacks search functionalities and filters despite being machine-readable and downloadable. Staff responsible for conducting disciplinary investigations do not receive dedicated training on investigative procedures.
This work is published under the responsibility of the Secretary-General of the OECD. The opinions expressed and arguments employed herein do not necessarily reflect the official views of the Member countries of the OECD.
This document, as well as any data and map included herein, are without prejudice to the status of or sovereignty over any territory, to the delimitation of international frontiers and boundaries and to the name of any territory, city or area.
The statistical data for Israel are supplied by and under the responsibility of the relevant Israeli authorities. The use of such data by the OECD is without prejudice to the status of the Golan Heights, East Jerusalem and Israeli settlements in the West Bank under the terms of international law.
Kosovo: This designation is without prejudice to positions on status, and is in line with United Nations Security Council Resolution 1244/99 and the Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice on Kosovo’s declaration of independence.
The full book is available in English: OECD (2026), Anti-Corruption and Integrity Outlook 2026: Harnessing the Integrity Advantage, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/16708b78-en.
© OECD 2026
Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0)
This work is made available under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International licence. By using this work, you accept to be bound by the terms of this licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Attribution – you must cite the work.
Translations – you must cite the original work, identify changes to the original and add the following text: In the event of any discrepancy between the original work and the translation, only the text of the original work should be considered valid.
Adaptations – you must cite the original work and add the following text: This is an adaptation of an original work by the OECD. The opinions expressed and arguments employed in this adaptation should not be reported as representing the official views of the OECD or of its Member countries.
Third-party material – the licence does not apply to third-party material in the work. If using such material, you are responsible for obtaining permission from the third party and for any claims of infringement.
You must not use the OECD logo, visual identity or cover image without express permission or suggest the OECD endorses your use of the work.
Any dispute arising under this licence shall be settled by arbitration in accordance with the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) Arbitration Rules 2012. The seat of arbitration shall be Paris (France). The number of arbitrators shall be one.