Chișinău judge and mother of several children Marina Rusu has described how the vetting process has reshaped corruption in Moldova, replacing direct bribery with more subtle forms of dependence and fostering a culture of self-censorship.
Vetting and growing divisions within the system
In recent days, discussions around the vetting of judges and prosecutors have resurfaced no longer as a tool of reform, but as a source of new systemic risks.
Rusu, a former member of the Superior Council of Magistracy, pointed to two long-term effects already transforming the justice system.
The first is a growing divide between those who passed the vetting process and those who did not. According to her, inconsistent application of rules undermines trust in the procedure and weakens institutional cohesion.
The rise of self-censorship
The second effect, which she considers even more dangerous, is self-censorship.
Rusu explained that when judges or prosecutors begin to fear that their independent views, professional integrity, or unpopular but lawful decisions could affect their promotion, transfer, or career prospects, they gradually adopt a habit of silence, avoiding disagreement, visibility, or any stance that might be unwelcome.
“The most courageous are dealt with harshly and arbitrarily,” she said.
From envelope bribes to systemic dependence
Rusu argues that the nature of corruption within the judiciary has also changed.
Whereas corruption previously involved straightforward envelope bribes, it now operates through more sophisticated mechanisms. As she explained, when officials receive significant salary increases through legal budgetary means, sometimes tens of thousands of lei more per month, they quickly adapt to a higher standard of living.
Over time, this creates dependency. Within months, individuals structure their lives around the new income level and can no longer imagine functioning without it.
According to Rusu, this financial reliance becomes a new form of vulnerability.
Legal income, hidden pressure
She cited figures to illustrate the point: each member of the Superior Council of Magistracy received over 400,000 lei between 2024 and March 2026 entirely legally.
The issue, she argues, is not the legality of the payments, but the uncertainty surrounding them. Given how frequently justice-related legislation changes, officials remain aware that these benefits could be reduced or removed at any time.
This unpredictability, in her view, creates indirect pressure and discourages independence.
A system that breeds fear
Rusu drew a stark comparison to illustrate the situation: like in cases of domestic abuse, formal rights mean little without financial independence. Similarly, judges may be formally independent but remain materially and psychologically tied to the system.
She also suggested that any dissent within the judiciary can be quickly suppressed through institutional mechanisms, including equality councils or other oversight bodies.
In practice, she warned, this creates a system where even lawful and principled actions may carry personal risk.
Long-term consequences
Rusu concluded that a reform intended to strengthen judicial independence risks producing the opposite effect – a generation of judges reluctant to speak out or act decisively.
Dealing with the consequences of this climate of fear, she warned, could take years.
