This Anti-Corruption Helpdesk brief was produced in response to a query from a U4 Partner Agency. The U4 Helpdesk is operated by Transparency International in collaboration with the U4 Anti-Corruption Resource Centre based at the Chr. Michelsen Institute.
Query
Please provide a summary of Russian links to corruption in Moldova, highlighting any recent cases.
Summary
Russia pursues various geopolitical interests in Moldova that are generally at odds with the stated desire of the current government to integrate further with the European Union.
This Helpdesk Answer explores four recent cases from Moldova of alleged money laundering, conflict of interest, undue influence, political finance violations and vote buying. First it analyses the extent to which these incidents constitute corruption. Second, it assesses whether they can be linked to Russian actors and the Kremlin’s foreign policy goals.
Finally, the paper considers how enhanced domestic anti-corruption measures, such as stronger beneficial ownership transparency and political finance controls, could help Moldova curb acts of corruption driven by foreign actors.
Main points
- Actors in both Moldova and Western countries have alleged for several years that Russia encourages corruption in Moldova to exert influence over political figures and voters. These concerns have grown more significant in the wake of Russia’s full-scale invasion of neighbouring Ukraine in 2022 and as the Moldova takes steps to deepen integration with the EU through accession.
- In the past decade, there have been several high-profile cases of corruption in Moldova with links to Russian nationals and Russia-friendly actors. These incidents encompass allegations of corruption-enabled money laundering, undue influence, conflict of interest, illicit political financing and vote buying. These cases have implicated members of the Moldovan political class leading to significant financial losses that had politically destabilising effects on the country.
- In some cases, there appear to be significant links to Russian state actors such as the Federal Security Service, while in others it is more difficult to ascertain the extent of the Kremlin’s involvement.
- Furthermore, not all alleged cases clearly amount to corruption, but may rather be more suitably framed as other forms of interference, such as disinformation, or even constitute legal business transactions even if some would argue they run contrary to Moldovan interests.
- While the findings indicate that some forms of Russian influence reflect strategic corruption, not all cases of Russia-linked corruption can be said to clearly amount to strategic corruption, stressing the potential need for a more considered application of the concept than is often found in the discourse.
- While some potential policy responses, such as requesting the extradition of suspected individuals, are dependent on (unlikely) Russian cooperation, other countermeasures can be carried out by the Moldovan authorities domestically to address the country’s vulnerabilities to Russia-linked corruption. These include greater enforcement of beneficial ownership transparency and political finance controls, the latter being especially important ahead of parliamentary elections in 2025.
Authors
Jamie Bergin (TI) [email protected]
Reviewed by
Matthew Jenkins (TI)
David Jackson (U4)
Date
24/01/2025
