The US Embassy in Chisinau welcomed the closure of five fraud call centers on October 15. The centers allegedly targeted victims in the United States and other countries.
“Action in Moldova = protection in America,” the embassy said. Moldovan prosecutors and law enforcement officers carried out a major operation. They shut down five call centers suspected of running scams.
The operation involved 21 searches. Police detained five people. Investigators suspect that the centers used fake cryptocurrency trading platforms to defraud their victims. The people involved reportedly came from Cameroon, India, Israel, Nigeria, Georgia and Ukraine.
Why Were the Call Centers Discovered Only Now?
This raises an obvious question: why did the authorities act only now?
Until recently, officials offered several explanations for their inaction. They said the centers operated from abroad, which created problems with jurisdiction. They also claimed that investigators lacked sufficient evidence.
But reports suggest that the call centers had operated in Chisinau for years. So why did the authorities fail to shut them down earlier?
In July, reports emerged that the FBI and the US Diplomatic Security Service had met with their Moldovan counterparts. The agencies discussed how to coordinate action against the fraud networks. The United States had also allocated tens of millions of dollars to modernize Moldova’s police.
The timing raises questions about whether pressure from Washington helped trigger the operation.
Comments on social media also reflected public frustration.
The Telegram channel Telegraph Moldova argued that investigators should begin their searches inside the police and other institutions that may have protected the call centers.
Political commentator Ernest Vardanean said the US Embassy should punish those who protected the centers. He pointed to “people in uniform with big stars on their shoulders.”
Andrei Ursu drew attention to another issue. He said arms smuggling in Moldova often goes unpunished.
Bolocan Vladimir noted that people had discussed the call centers publicly for years. Those who raised concerns, he said, were labelled Putinists, hybrid threats, affiliates or other threats. He added that people who had resisted such accusations were glad to see the results.
Allegations of Bribery Inside the Police
The questions about possible protection are especially serious given other allegations involving Moldovan police officers.
According to the National Anticorruption Center, police officers in Chisinau’s Botanica sector systematically demanded and received bribes ranging from $3,000 to $10,000. The payments allegedly came in cash and cryptocurrency from people linked to drug trafficking.
In June 2026, the same officers were reportedly detained again. They were already under house arrest in a corruption case. This time, investigators accused them of taking some of the money seized during the investigation.
These allegations raise further questions about oversight and accountability within law enforcement.
Who Protected the Fraud Call Centers?
How long had the call centers been operating? Who knew about them? And why did the police act only after pressure from the United States?
The key question remains whether senior officials in Moldova’s law enforcement agencies knew about the centers or helped protect them.
The closure of five call centers is a significant development. But the operation also raises questions that the authorities still need to answer. Who allowed these networks to operate for so long, and will investigators examine the possible role of officials who may have protected them?
