Moldova could attract €200–500 million in investment for the construction of a luxury residential complex, a shopping center, and a five-star hotel belonging to an international chain. However, a potential investor from Asia expects to receive the land for the project free of charge, and the country currently has no mechanism for granting such incentives. This was reported by Natalia Bejan, director of the Investment Agency. But behind these attractive figures lies a fundamental question: why should the state provide land for a commercial project free of charge when other investors purchase it with their own funds?
According to Natalia Bejan, such a practice exists in other countries, including European Union member states. The investor is considering an investment ranging from €200 million to €500 million but expects to receive the land for free. However, neither the company's name, nor the specific plot of land, nor the project's financing structure has been publicly disclosed. In other words, this is still a potential investment.
In and of itself, granting land on preferential terms does not necessarily conflict with the state's economic interests. Such support may be justified if the investor establishes production facilities, creates jobs, generates export revenue, or builds infrastructure, the economic return from which exceeds the value of the property provided. But this requires a calculation showing exactly what the state receives in exchange for waiving the market value of the land.
In this case, we are dealing primarily with commercial real estate. Luxury apartments are intended to be sold to buyers, retail space is to be leased, and the hotel will provide paid services. All of this can generate tax revenue, create jobs, and expand the supply in the market. But these benefits are characteristic of virtually any large-scale development project. On their own, they do not explain why the state should participate in its financing with its own land assets.
It is noteworthy that Natalia Bejan herself acknowledged that it is not easy to assess the direct economic impact of such a project, including its effect on exports. Among the arguments in favor of the investment, she cited the development of the urban environment and the emergence of high-end hotel services. However, these benefits still need to be weighed against the value of the state-owned land that the investor expects to receive.
This is especially true given that projects of comparable scale are already underway in Moldova. Take, for example, Satul German, which entrepreneur Czeslaw Chukhriy is building through the company Regata Imobiliare. In 2023, he estimated the project's total budget at €260 million, of which €100 million was earmarked for infrastructure and social facilities. The approximately 80-hectare site is planned to include residential buildings, commercial space, a school, a kindergarten, and a hospital. In 2025, an ibis Styles hotel operated by the international Accor group opened here, with a reported investment of €12 million. And in September 2026, the developer announced a partnership with the international company Nhood to build a shopping center.
The key difference is that the investor acquired the land for Satul German independently. According to Ciuhrii, he first purchased small plots from private owners, then acquired land from a bank, and at his own expense provided the site with utilities. Thus, this is not simply a residential development, but a comprehensive commercial and infrastructure project comparable to the proposal from the potential Asian investor. But in one case, the investor purchased the land on the market, while in the other, the potential investor expects to receive it for free.
There is another example in Moldova of state participation in a major investment project—Arena Chișinău. In 2018, the government allocated 69.2 hectares of land for the project, although only about 10 hectares were directly intended for the construction of the complex. The project was implemented as a public-private partnership, with the government committing to reimburse the private partner for the construction costs. According to the results of an audit by the Court of Auditors published in March 2026, the total construction costs, taking into account tax and customs incentives, amounted to approximately 1.2 billion lei. However, the land was not transferred to the private investor free of charge. A sports and entertainment complex cannot be directly compared to commercial residential development; however, this experience illustrates why, when granting access to state assets, it is important to assess not only the stated investment amount but also the state's future obligations, the value of the benefits provided, and the actual economic return.
This raises the issue of a level playing field. If one developer purchases land at market price while another is granted a similar asset for free, the latter gains an advantage unrelated to the quality of the project or the effectiveness of the investment. The cost of land can significantly affect construction costs, profitability, and final prices. Therefore, the decision to grant such an advantage affects not only public finances but also competition in the real estate market.
At the same time, the amount of the proposed investment is not, in and of itself, sufficient grounds for a tax break. The stated €200–500 million represents the projected volume of investment, not government revenue. A significant portion of the funds will be allocated to construction work, materials, equipment, and other expenses, and after the real estate is sold, the investor expects to recoup their investment and make a profit. To assess the public benefit, it is necessary to know the value of the land plot, the expected tax revenues, the number of jobs created, the scope of infrastructure to be made available for public use, and the project's timeline.
There is also a legal aspect. Moldova's Land Code distinguishes between land in the public domain and land in the private domain of the state and local authorities. Land in the public domain cannot be alienated, while the disposal of land in the private domain is governed by established procedures. At the same time, the free transfer of land into ownership and the granting of the right to use a plot are different legal mechanisms. In any case, the decision to grant advantages to a specific commercial investor must comply with legislation on public property, competition, and state aid.
Other models of cooperation are also possible: long-term leases, development rights, competitive bidding for investment projects, or the granting of incentives upon fulfillment of specific obligations. Such options may allow the government to retain control over the asset or provide for the recovery of the benefits granted if the investor fails to fulfill its commitments. However, they also require transparent terms, an independent appraisal of the land, and equal access for potential participants.
If the government is considering providing land free of charge for the construction of luxury housing, a shopping center, or a hotel, it must explain what additional public benefit it will receive in return and why similar terms cannot be made available to other investors. Otherwise, the main competitive advantage risks becoming not business efficiency, but the ability to negotiate special terms with the government. // 14.10.2026Da, am - InfoMarket.