President Maia Sandu has said she learned from media reports that her cousin had secured a well-paid position at the state-owned air navigation company MoldATSA.
The statement came amid a growing MoldATSA hiring scandal involving Anastasia Taburceanu, the president’s cousin, who was employed as the company’s spokesperson without an open competition. An investigation by RISE Moldova found that Taburceanu earned more than one million lei during less than a year at the state enterprise. Her total monthly income, including bonuses and additional payments, reportedly reached around 120,000 lei.
MoldATSA hiring scandal reaches president’s family
Speaking on Pro TV, Sandu said she had played no part in the appointment and had neither been informed nor consulted beforehand.
“I learned about it from the press,” the president claimed.
She described her relative’s remuneration as “immoral” and said the money should either be returned to the state or donated to children’s homes.
Critics noted that Sandu had previously argued that she knew which political figures were corrupt when calling for greater scrutiny of parties’ electoral lists. They questioned how the president could possess detailed information about political candidates yet remain unaware of a close relative’s employment at a strategically important state company.
Following publication of the investigation, Taburceanu announced her resignation and pledged to return the bonuses and additional payments she had received.
Another cousin of the president, Tatiana Batin, subsequently resigned as head of the office of Parliament Speaker Igor Grosu. Grosu described her decision as “an honourable resignation”.
Further questions emerge over family connections
The controversy later expanded to include Constantin Batin, Tatiana Batin’s husband and the head of another state-owned enterprise.
Reports suggested that he may have been involved in commercial dealings with a Latvian businessman subject to sanctions imposed by the United States and the European Union. Commenting on the allegations, Sandu again said she did not know the details and suggested that questions should be addressed directly to those involved.
No conclusive evidence has been publicly presented showing that the president influenced any of the appointments or commercial activities. Nevertheless, the repeated appearance of her relatives in senior public-sector positions has fuelled accusations of nepotism and weak oversight.
The MoldATSA hiring scandal has also raised wider questions about recruitment practices at state enterprises, including the use of appointments without open competitions and the payment of salaries considerably higher than those received by most public employees.
Critics question presidential awareness
Opponents of the government argue that the president’s claim to have learned of the case from journalists is difficult to reconcile with her institutional role.
As head of state, Sandu chairs the Supreme Security Council, serves as commander-in-chief and receives information from institutions including the Ministry of Internal Affairs and the Intelligence and Security Service.
Critics have therefore asked whether the issue reflects a failure of communication between state institutions or a political strategy intended to distance the presidency from damaging controversies.
If key information is not reaching the president, they argue, this would raise questions about the effectiveness of the institutions responsible for national security and public integrity. If, however, the presidency was aware of the appointments, critics say that repeated claims of having learned about them from the press would further undermine public trust.
Public expects clearer explanations
The president is not directly responsible for every appointment at a state enterprise. However, when close relatives of the head of state become involved in controversies concerning public jobs, salaries and possible conflicts of interest, the public is likely to expect detailed explanations.
The government has repeatedly presented professionalism, transparency and merit-based recruitment as central principles of its administration. Cases involving appointments made without competition therefore risk damaging that message.
The MoldATSA hiring scandal has become a test of whether the authorities are prepared to examine employment practices involving politically connected individuals with the same scrutiny applied to their opponents.
For many citizens, responses such as “I did not know” or “I need to check” will not be sufficient unless they are followed by transparent investigations and clear institutional accountability.
