Investments Following Presentations: Who Is Responsible for Ensuring Predictable Rules?

Moldova Business Week 2026 concluded with discussions about investments, new projects, and Moldova's advantages for international business. The government invites investors, touting clear rules and a predictable business environment. But the investment climate isn't shaped solely at forums. The real test begins when an investor encounters a specific regulator, an audit, or a dispute with the government.

InfoMarket has already raised a similar question regarding the National Bank: who oversees the regulator? The regulator's independence from political interference is essential, but it does not mean a lack of accountability. The more authority a government agency has and the more serious the consequences of its decisions are for business, the more important it is to have mechanisms in place to monitor how that authority is exercised.

Now a similar question arises in a completely different sphere—regarding ZYN nicotine pouches. There is a legal dispute between Philip Morris and the National Public Health Agency (ANSP) that has not yet been definitively resolved in court.

As of June 24, 2026, Moldovan law explicitly prohibits the placement of nicotine pouches on the market. However, Law No. 125/2025, which amended the Law "On Tobacco Control," provides for a transition period: tobacco and related products placed on the market before the new rules took effect may continue to be sold for another 12 months.

A dispute has arisen over whether this provision applies to ZYN and what the product's legal status was prior to June 24.

Philip Morris claims that as early as October 2025, before sales began, it officially requested clarification from the ANSP regarding the applicable  regulatory framework. According to the company, the agency stated that no specific procedures or requirements for nicotine pouches existed at that time, and that a direct ban was scheduled to take effect in June 2026. Based on this response, Philip Morris states, the company imported the product, invested in its distribution, and began sales.

However, on June 2, 2026, the ANSP publicly stated that nicotine pouches could not be legally placed on the market even before the direct ban took effect. The agency cited, in particular, the absence of specific requirements for such products in the previous legislation and the general requirements regarding prior notification of product market entry.

This raises a key question regarding the predictability of the regulator's actions. According to Philip Morris, the company had contacted the relevant government agency in advance, received clarification, and only then made a commercial decision. More than six months later, the ANSP stated that the product could not have been legally placed on the market even earlier.

This does not necessarily mean that ANSP has changed its position or that Philip Morris correctly interpreted the response it received. But the question remains: to what extent can a business rely on an official clarification from the regulator when making an investment decision?

At the same time, the dispute is already being accompanied by fairly stringent administrative measures. According to Philip Morris, on July 28, 2026, ANSP simultaneously conducted inspections at ten retail locations of a commercial partner (a company selling the product), and on July 30, demanded that sales of ZYN be halted.

ANSP also conducted inspections at the distributor's warehouse and at Philip Morris's warehouse. According to the company, the measures were expanded to include withdrawal of ZYN products that had already been distributed, their collection from point of sales, and their subsequent destruction. The company is challenging these actions in court.

Such stringent measures typically imply the presence of a significant risk to public health. However, in this case, the timing of the response also raises questions: if the threat warranted such serious intervention, why were the relevant measures taken only about two months after the product appeared on the market?

The scale of the resources involved deserves special attention. According to an official ANSP report, as of the end of 2025, 57 of the 134 authorized positions for state control inspectors were filled—about 42%. During that same year, the agency conducted 3,683 unscheduled inspections, of which 3,502 were related to procedures for issuing health permits. Thus, the remaining unscheduled inspections accounted for approximately 181 cases. In the area of tobacco control, the agency conducted 1,103 inspections between 2020 and 2025, including 429 unannounced inspections.

The ANSP may have had legally valid grounds for conducting these inspections. However, given the staffing situation, the simultaneous inspection of ten retail outlets as part of a single case appears to be a significant concentration of inspection resources and raises the question of what circumstances necessitated such a large-scale inspection.

There is also a more sensitive aspect. According to Philip Morris, as part of the proceedings, the ANSP demanded that the commercial partner's activity be suspended for up to 12 months. There is a significant difference between banning the sale of a specific disputed product and potentially restricting the operations of a commercial operator as a whole. Equally sensitive is the issue of destroying stocks when the legal status of the product itself and the applicability of the transition period to it are still being contested in court.

And here again arises the question that InfoMarket has already raised in relation to another powerful regulator: who oversees the regulator?

This is not about the government interfering in a court proceeding or telling the ANSP what decision to make. But there is a significant difference between interfering in a specific case and overseeing the quality of government administration. The state has an interest in ensuring that the actions of its agencies are well-founded and proportionate, and that official explanations are clear and consistent.

The Philip Morris case ties in with the theme of the recently concluded Moldova Business Week. The country can offer potential investors access to the European market, tax incentives, free economic zones, a skilled workforce, and new opportunities. But there is another indicator of the investment climate that is difficult to convey in a presentation: what happens after the money has already been invested and the business finds itself in a serious dispute with the government?

Can an investor understand the rules in advance? Can they rely on an explanation provided by a government agency? Can they effectively challenge a regulator's decision before the most serious consequences set in?

This is not about protecting Philip Morris from government oversight. The company, like any other market participant, is obligated to comply with Moldovan law, and public health concerns give the government grounds for strict regulation of nicotine products. However, the regulator must also act within the limits of its authority, apply the law consistently, and be prepared to have its decisions reviewed in court.

A strong and independent regulator is essential. But independence from political interference does not mean there are no mechanisms to oversee how its powers are exercised.

This issue extends beyond the nicotine products market. For an investor, it is not only the tax rate, labor costs, or market access that matter. Equally important is the confidence that the rules can be understood in advance, that a government agency's position can be obtained before making an investment decision, and that any dispute that arises can be resolved through a functioning judicial review process.

Moldova Business Week has come to a close. From now on, the country's investment appeal will be assessed not only by statements made from the stage, but also by what happens to investors after the presentations are over and investments have already been made. // 08.10.2026 – InfoMarket.