Moldova Moves Forward, Murusidze Remains - Interview

For years, the Republic of Moldova has been caught between European integration ambitions and the influence of Russian interests. Against this backdrop, the country has initiated a series of far-reaching reforms – particularly in the justice sector.

A central element of these reforms is the so-called vetting process : a systematic integrity review of all judges and prosecutors. To better understand this approach and gain firsthand insight, tiflis24.de spoke with Ilie CHIRTOACĂ , the executive director of the Legal Resources Centre (LRCM) in Chișinău.

Background to the Legal Resources Centre

The Legal Resources Centre is a non-governmental, non-profit, independent, and politically unaffiliated organization in Moldova. Founded in 2010, it works to strengthen democracy and the rule of law through research, monitoring, public policy analysis, advocacy, judicial oversight, strategic litigation, training, and awareness-raising. Its mission is to help build a genuine democracy where justice is impartial, corruption is punished according to the law, individual rights are respected, and access to public office and the judiciary is based on merit rather than personal interest.

Corruption in Moldova before the reforms

Tiflis24:

Thank you. Let's talk about corruption. How serious was the corruption problem in Moldova before these reforms?

Ilie CHIRTOACĂ:

It is perceived as endemic. Less than 20% of people trust the judiciary, and this level of trust has remained unchanged for a decade. It has changed slightly, but on average, it has been only two out of ten people over the past ten years. This is the result of various processes. I can cite several examples. The judiciary has been involved in scandals that have severely damaged its image. Most notably, there was the famous 2014 banking fraud, which cost us 12% of our GDP. This scheme was carried out with the involvement of the judiciary: judges issued or suspended decisions of the National Bank, allowing money to leave our system. We also had the infamous Russian Laundromat scheme in 2010–2011. More than $20 billion was laundered through our banking system by Russian companies and oligarchs. Judges in various regions signed court orders that enabled this scheme. Finally, judges in Chișinău annulled the results of the 2018 elections, which were held by a Opposition candidates had won the elections. Over the years, such cases have created a public impression that the judiciary is vulnerable to vested interests and can bend to political needs. There are also credible international reports that state that judges worked in fear and felt their independence was threatened by their own leadership. There is a very good report on this by the International Commission of Jurists from 2019. Even though over 200,000 cases move through the system annually, a few illustrative cases—five or ten—show how the judiciary has been bent to suit oligarchs or political parties. Despite some reform efforts between 2010 and 2020, we have inherited this image of a judiciary riddled with corruption. Overall, corruption is seen as systemic—not only in the judiciary, but in society as a whole.

Measuring trust and corruption

Tiflis24:

How is this measured? In Georgia, we have a similar problem: The ruling party controls the entire system. Every judge and every decision is politically influenced. But at lower levels, direct corruption is less pronounced. When we say our courts are corrupt and controlled, people always ask how we measure it. How do you measure people's trust? Do you conduct surveys or do you have statistics?

Ilie CHIRTOACĂ:

We have several sources that we consult annually or every two years. First, public perception: an annual survey called the Barometer of Public Opinion , which has been running since 2002. It asks the same questions every year to measure trust in public institutions, including the judiciary. Second, we have more targeted surveys from think tanks like ours. We commission a survey that measures the perceptions of professionals within the justice system—judges, lawyers, prosecutors. This is conducted by independent sociological firms. Third, there is Transparency International's Corruption Perceptions Index. And there are other tools from foundations like IRI and NDI that include questions about trust in institutions and perceptions of corruption. Considering all of this, I can safely say that the numbers are consistently below 20% trust. There are also more nuanced questions—for example, whether people believe they or their loved ones would get justice in court. Even within the system, professionals recognize corruption. In every survey we've conducted, Judges, prosecutors, and lawyers admit that it exists—although each tends to say that it is worse in the other professional group. I would be happy to provide you with some of these sources after the interview.

Anti-corruption institutions in Moldova

Tiflis24:

Thank you. Now I'd like to connect two topics: vetting and the Anti-Corruption Bureau. We have an Anti-Corruption Bureau in Georgia that essentially does nothing. It can't conduct independent investigations and is under government control—the prime minister can dismiss its head. That says it all. Can you tell us something about Moldova's anti-corruption institutions? Are they independent? And has the vetting system been effective for the judiciary?

Ilie CHIRTOACĂ:

Moldova has several institutions, but no single one with the mandate to combat all corruption cases. The two most active are the National Anti-Corruption Center (NAC) and the Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor's Office. The NAC is an investigative agency. Its director is proposed by 20 members of parliament and elected by the parliamentary majority. It is the oldest anti-corruption institution in Moldova and quite robust, with over 300 employees, some of them very talented—a true anti-corruption task force. The Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor's Office was established in 2016 and is intended to be independent. Its leadership is selected through a public competition and appointed on the recommendation of the Supreme Council of Prosecutors. In 2023, there was a reform idea to more clearly separate their mandates: The NAC would handle systemic, high-level corruption, while the Specialized Prosecutor's Office would handle lower-level cases. But Moldova has limited human resources. These agencies used to work together, but after changes to the Criminal Procedure Code, they were separated, and now they operate in isolation. The NAC does not have its own Prosecutors – Criminal proceedings must be conducted by regional prosecutors. At the same time, the Specialized Prosecutor's Office is now more isolated. Ideally, these two institutions should work together. But unfortunately, they are now fragmented and weaker. Even though the NAC is stronger, political factors remain. After elections, the first official act is often to replace the director of the NAC. As civil society observers, we cannot say that these two authorities are reliably fulfilling their mandate. There was potential and significant international funding, but poor decisions have weakened them. The result is a poor record of indictments and convictions. The idea was to have a single institution fully staffed with prosecutors, investigators, IT specialists, and police, capable of effectively combating high-level corruption. But so far, these reforms have not yielded any clear success.

The Vetting Process: Concept and Implementation

Tiflis24:

And the vetting process?

Ilie CHIRTOACĂ

Vetting is an extraordinary measure. Both the judiciary and the public prosecutor's office are considered to be lacking in independence. There are investigative journalist reports showing that judges and prosecutors cannot live on their official salaries. There are stories of luxurious houses and expensive cars—while their salaries are modest. Compared to other Council of Europe states, Moldovan judges and prosecutors earn less than almost all others. The vetting process was designed to restore integrity by verifying financial circumstances and ethical integrity. Commissions of Moldovan and international experts examine whether the declared income matches the expenses. They also examine ethical violations—but only for the past five years. For example, cases are being investigated in which judges and prosecutors vacationed together but did not declare a conflict of interest in court. Such extraordinary measures were needed because internal mechanisms had failed. Ethics committees and performance evaluations routinely certified "excellent" work, while the same judges were implicated in the Laundromat scandal, the bank fraud, or the annulled election." Vetting is still in its early stages, but the initial results are remarkable. In the past three years, over 140 judges have left the system—almost half of the judiciary. Moldova has about 500 judicial positions on paper, but normally about 300 are filled. 95% of Supreme Court judges resigned after the vetting law was passed. Not all because of the vetting, but many because they would have otherwise lost their severance pay and pensions. It is still too early to measure changes in public trust, but there is cautious optimism.

Trust in the vetting process

Tiflis24:

Has public trust been measured yet?

Ilie CHIRTOACĂ:

It's still too early. But there was a recent survey of judicial professionals that showed that 80% support the idea of vetting. But when you ask whether they trust the process itself, support drops to 30–40%. It's also interesting that in the first phase—the 'pre-vetting' for candidates for the Supreme Judicial Council and the Supreme Council of Prosecutors—only about 18% passed. That's pretty much the same as the 20% trust level in the general population. So people seem to have a pretty clear perception of the true state of the system. Of course, if you ask the general population, many want to put everyone in prison. They're stricter. Judicial associations, on the other hand, often oppose vetting. The head of the Judges' Association today is someone who failed the vetting process. Vetting is controversial. It's invasive: It checks bank accounts, travel movements. There are privacy concerns and debates about fairness. But the real impact won't be seen until two or three years. Currently, the system is undergoing a transformation. Proceedings are delayed due to many vacancies. But from a civil society perspective, this is a price that must be paid to clean up the system. Vetting has already exposed judges with unexplained wealth, gambling addictions, conflicts of interest, and luxury apartments that the average Moldovan could never afford. It has forced a real discussion about ethics and integrity.

Sustainability and future challenges

Tiflis24:

Finally, once the vetting is complete, how can you keep the system clean? Once new judges are in office and the commission has finished its work, how do you prevent the old problems from returning?

Ilie CHIRTOACĂ:

This is a crucial question. Judges and prosecutors must consider an exit strategy. There are discussions about integrating vetting methods into the work of permanent institutions such as the Supreme Judicial Council and the National Integrity Authority. These institutions existed before, but they failed. They need better capacities, qualified staff, and higher salaries. This has not yet been resolved. That is why vetting was carried out in stages. First, the members of the Supreme Judicial Council had to pass the vetting—they can now renew the system from within. There is talk of creating specialized departments for financial analysis. The expertise of the vetting commission—its staff, including former investigators and outstanding lawyers—should be transferred to permanent institutions. But this is a challenge. The vetting commissions were paid by international donors and well compensated to attract top people. Moldova will have to keep these people in the civil service. As for politics: Yes, vetting was only possible thanks to the political will of the current government. There are elections in September. and we might no longer have the same majority. If there is a change of government, especially to pro-Russian forces, there is a risk that they will want to reverse the reforms. But there are certain safeguards: the law itself, which was reviewed by the Venice Commission, stipulates that vetting is a one-time measure. Furthermore, the Constitutional Court can intervene if politicians try to undermine judicial independence. Still, nothing is guaranteed. Political creativity always finds ways. Public opinion will also play a role. People don't feel any change so far, but maybe in a few years. Judges and prosecutors bear a great responsibility. Twelve new members of the Supreme Judicial Council have passed the vetting. They can act as a voice for reforms. But as we have seen in other countries, reforms are reversible if there is no civil society oversight or a sense of accountability within the profession.

Conclusion and European perspective

Tbilisi24:

Thank you. And with the EU integration process, even more reforms will come.

Ilie CHIRTOACĂ:

Absolutely. It's a good start. Thank you for the opportunity to speak to your audience. It's important that Moldova is viewed from a regional perspective. We also hope that the situation in Georgia will improve. We work with many partners there. Unfortunately, recent developments are a great concern for us. We send our greetings and solidarity to our friends in Georgian civil society.

Tiflis24:

Thank you very much. It's a good lesson not to allow Russian-influenced politicians to come to power.