On September 29, 2026, the Supreme Court of Justice (SCJ) rejected an appeal filed by prosecutor Veaceslav Potînga against a July 8, 2026, decision of the Superior Council of Prosecutors (SCP). The SCP had accepted the report of the Prosecutor Vetting Commission and noted that Potînga had failed the external vetting process.
Veaceslav POTÎNGA currently works at the Chișinău Municipal Prosecutor’s Office and previously worked at the Anticorruption Prosecutor’s Office. The Commission recommended that he fail the vetting process on the grounds that he did not meet the financial integrity criterion under Law No. 252/2023.
What was the main issue in the case?
One of the main issues examined concerned the purchase of a property in 2020. The property was purchased at auction in April 2020 by a third party for 763,412 lei. Shortly after registering ownership of the property, the third party sold it to Veaceslav Potînga for 760,412 lei – slightly less than the amount paid at auction. The Commission, and subsequently the SCP, found that the person who purchased the property at auction had acted as a front for Veaceslav Potînga and that, in substance, the cost of the auction purchase should be attributed to Potînga’s household.
This conclusion was based on a combination of circumstances, including the buyer’s lack of sufficient personal funds, differing explanations about the source of the money, the use of cash payments, the quick resale of the property without any profit, and the circumstances surrounding Potînga’s subsequent negotiation and purchase of the property.
The SCJ concluded that the Commission and the SCP had presented sufficient facts to shift part of the evidentiary burden to the subject of vetting. It was therefore for Potînga to demonstrate that the concerns raised were unfounded. According to the SCJ, he failed to dispel those concerns.
Link to the financial integrity criterion
Once the cost of the property purchase was attributed to Potînga’s household, the household’s financial balance for 2020 showed a deficit of 561,087 lei. The SCJ found that this amount exceeded the threshold of 234,000 lei established by Article 11(3)(a) of Law No. 252/2023 and stated that this negative balance alone was sufficient to conclude that Potînga had failed the external vetting process.
The Commission had also identified a negative balance of 123,894 lei for 2013, bringing the total discrepancy to 684,981 lei. The SCJ did not, however, examine the 2013 issue on its merits.
Veaceslav Potînga also argued that he had been treated differently from other individuals subject to external vetting. The SCJ found that the cases he cited were not comparable to the circumstances surrounding the property in question and that he had not identified a protected ground that would explain the alleged differential treatment.
For further details, see the