Venice Commission to carefully examine opinions on draft concerning Moldova's Anti-Corruption and Organized Crime Combating Prosecutor's Office

The Prosecutor General’s Office of Moldova today hosted a meeting with the delegation of the Venice Commission, on a working visit to Chisinau. The visit takes place in the context of drafting the joint opinion of the Venice Commission and the Directorate General Human Rights and Rule of Law of the Council of Europe (DGI) on the draft law No. 40/2025 concerning the Anti-Corruption and Organized Crime Combating Prosecutor's Office (PACO).

During the discussions, representatives of the Prosecutor General's Office, specialized prosecution offices, the Superior Council of Prosecutors, and the National Anti-Corruption Center (CNA) presented opinions on the proposed reforms and the modification of competencies for the specialized prosecutor’s offices. At the same time, the sides addressed aspects related to the return to certain collaboration practices between the Anti-Corruption Prosecutor's Office and the CNA.

“The Prosecutor's Office’s representatives reiterated the arguments previously expressed in the opinions sent to parliament by the Prosecutor General's Office and the Anti-Corruption Prosecutor's Office, highlighting the functional and institutional risks that could affect the investigation of highly complex cases, as well as the efficient management of human and logistical resources,” reads a press release by the Prosecutor General's Office.

For their part, the members of the Venice Commission delegation and the DGI confirmed the commitment to carefully consider the expressed opinions and reflect them in their joint opinion, aimed at providing an objective and balanced assessment of the legislative draft.

The meeting took place in an atmosphere of open and constructive cooperation, confirming the common interest in strengthening the independence, stability and efficiency of the Prosecutor's Office system, according to European standards.

The PACO Draft: Provisions and Risks Identified

The draft No. 40/2025, known as the Anti-Corruption and Organized Crime Combating Prosecutor’s Office (PACO), aims to create a new institution, which is to take over the competencies of the current Anti-Corruption Prosecutor's Office (PA) and the Prosecutor's Office for Combating Organized Crime and Special Causes (PCCOCS). The new entity would handle the investigation of corruption, organized crime, terrorism and torture offenses, thereby enhancing Moldova's capacity to manage complex cases at European standards.

The draft involves the dissolution of the two existing prosecutor's offices and the transfer of files, archives, assets and staff to PACO. The legislative initiative was adopted in the first reading by parliament, but its implementation raises more questions.

Authorities and experts have identified multiple risks. The government issued a critical opinion, emphasizing that, in its current form, the draft may create more problems than solutions. The main risks include: the lack of a clear mechanism for the transfer of prosecutors and auxiliary staff; the possibility of blocking or losing files and archives during the transition period; PACO's broad and ambiguous competencies, which could hit the institution's efficiency and focus on major cases; short deadlines and limited consultations that could complicate the implementation and operation of institutions during the change period.

The European Commission's enlargement report indicates that the draft does not provide sustainable solutions, and the necessary expertise – legal, anti-corruption, and institutional – has not been carried out at the level required. In the context, the opinions sent to parliament by the Prosecutor General's Office and the Anti-Corruption Prosecutor's Office highlight the functional and institutional risks that could affect the effective investigation of complex cases, as well as the management of human and logistical resources.

Thus, the PACO draft represents an ambitious reform, aimed at strengthening the fight against corruption and organized crime; yet, its implementation requires adjustments and clarifications, in order to avoid disrupting the activities of the prosecution offices and to ensure the observance of European standards.