- The corruption scandal surrounding controversial appointments of politically connected figures continues to grow. New details have emerged about former Prime Minister Natalia Gavrilița, who remains on the payroll of Moldova’s National Bank while reportedly residing in Germany.
- “Titans” of Monetary Policy
- What Does the Former Prime Minister Own?
- Who Pays the Bill?
The corruption scandal surrounding controversial appointments of politically connected figures continues to grow. New details have emerged about former Prime Minister Natalia Gavrilița, who remains on the payroll of Moldova’s National Bank while reportedly residing in Germany.
The controversy has now reached former Prime Minister Natalia Gavrilița, who was appointed to the Supervisory Board of the National Bank of Moldova (NBM) for a seven-year term just months after leaving office. Investigators have now turned their attention to her financial disclosures—and not without reason.
According to her 2024 asset declaration, Gavrilița received more than 1.22 million lei in remuneration from the National Bank, amounting to over 100,000 lei per month. In 2025, her income from the NBM exceeded 1.37 million lei, bringing her current monthly earnings to approximately 114,000 lei, funded by Moldovan taxpayers.
The figures are striking, especially when compared with the modest salaries and pensions received by ordinary Moldovans.
But that is not the whole story. According to available information, Gavrilița is currently living abroad—in Berlin, where she reportedly rents an apartment. This naturally raises the question: what work is she performing there while receiving such a substantial salary from Moldova’s central bank? Is it more convenient to oversee the National Bank from Germany? Or does she simply remain on the payroll while collecting a generous public salary, much like other relatives and associates of President Maia Sandu who have recently come under public scrutiny?
“Titans” of Monetary Policy
Gavrilița’s appointment to the National Bank’s Supervisory Board sparked controversy from the very beginning.
Former Prime Minister Ion Chicu sarcastically referred to Gavrilița and fellow appointee Dumitru Alaiba as “economic titans” who would supervise the National Bank while receiving what he described as a “symbolic” salary of 100,000 lei.
“Two ‘economic titans,’ Alaiba and Gavrilița, will be ‘supervising’ the National Bank. With a ‘symbolic’ salary of 100,000 lei, these corrupt and incompetent individuals will be responsible for monetary policy,” Chicu wrote on social media.
Alexei Lungu, leader of the Chance Party, also criticized the appointment. He claimed Gavrilița had been provided with a new position through the organization Partnership for a New Economy—where she also declared a salary of nearly 65,000 lei—as a way of rewarding her for her previous work, including her role in gas procurement negotiations.
“Natalia Gavrilița had to be rewarded somehow—not directly, but through a well-paid position. I am convinced that this partnership with the government did not happen by accident,” Lungu stated.
What Does the Former Prime Minister Own?
In addition to her salary from the National Bank, Gavrilița’s 2024 declaration includes:
• nearly 65,000 lei in salary from the Partnership for a New Economy organization;
• approximately 25,000 lei in rental income;
• a Robert Bosch Foundation fellowship worth more than €40,000;
• more than 670,000 lei held in bank accounts.
Her declared assets also include an apartment purchased in 1997 and a ten-year-old Lexus RX350.
Who Pays the Bill?
While ordinary Moldovans struggle with rising living costs, former senior officials from the ruling party continue receiving substantial public salaries long after leaving office—often while residing abroad.
This is not the first time public attention has focused on the incomes of former PAS officials. It raises an obvious question: how many more individuals remain on the public payroll in senior positions while living outside Moldova and performing little or none of their official duties?
To critics, the system increasingly appears designed to provide comfortable public-funded positions for politically connected insiders regardless of whether they actively contribute to the country’s institutions or simply remain on thepayroll from thousands of kilometers away.
