Moldovan President Maia Sandu secured a significant victory in yesterday’s second round of elections, winning 55% to 45% against former Prosecutor General Alexandr Stoianoglo, despite a sweeping influence campaign by the Kremlin.
“Sandu’s win is crucial for Moldova to break free from the grip of pro-Kremlin oligarchs and gradually transform into a prosperous European society,” remarked Tiina Ilsen of PractNet, an NGO advising the Moldovan government.
Investigative Journalism Unmasks the Kremlin’s “Network Marketing” Tactics
The investigative journalism outlet ZdG played a pivotal role in exposing election manipulation, with its journalists going undercover using false identities to infiltrate a network created by oligarch Ilan Shor. Shor, infamous for a 2014 money-laundering scheme that siphoned $1 billion from Moldovan banks—equivalent to 12% of the country’s GDP—still commands significant support from many Moldovans and funds various parties and opinion leaders.
Before the first election round, ZdG released a hidden-camera investigation detailing a network scheme distributing an estimated €30 million. The Moldovan police estimated the network’s size at 130,000 members, while President Sandu spoke of up to 300,000 voters being directly influenced with payments ranging from €100 to €1,000.
ZdG first documented Shor’s network with thorough video evidence before the first election round and the EU referendum on October 20. Ahead of the second round, a follow-up investigation by ZdG, involving a journalist who had infiltrated another branch of Shor’s network since June, revealed plans to influence the runoff.
Journalist Natalia Zaharescu, who operated under the alias “Irina Zahar,” participated in the distribution of “financial support” to influence voters’ decisions. Before the first round of elections, voters were persuaded through a network marketing scheme that the main goal was to prevent Moldova’s accession to the EU. However, before the second round, the Kremlin-led network altered its messaging.
ZdG: screenshot.
Zaharescu was given instructions before October 20: “Vote for anyone. Because in this situation, the referendum is what matters. The ‘against’ stamp must be placed on the referendum ballot. If the constitution is changed for joining the European Union, we will definitely be dragged into war. Of course, we want to be part of Europe, but the EU will only accept us after 2030; these (constitutional amendments) are just words in the wind.”
However, after a narrow victory in the Euro-referendum on October 20, the message from Shor’s agents changed. Participants in the network were urged that no one should boycott the second round of elections or spoil the ballots anymore – everyone had to vote against Sandu.
When ZdG published its first investigation into Shor’s network before the first election day and the police began showing interest in those involved, many participants in the network panicked. One activist told “Irina Zahari”: “I deleted almost all the pictures from my phone. And I threw away all (election materials and leaflets) I had at home.”
There was reason for anxiety, as one Moldovan state institution – the Public Services Agency – suspended the employment of 40 people after the first round of elections, who had accepted Russian money. Three-quarters of these individuals worked in the pro-Kremlin autonomous region of Gagauzia, and four of them were mid-level managers in government agencies. The state institution justified the immediate suspension of these individuals during the criminal investigation by noting that they had access to sensitive data in national databases.
Stoianoglod was hit with corruption charges
Before the first round of elections, incumbent President Sandu was at the center of attacks, but before the second round, the focus of the attacks shifted to her rival candidate, Stoianoglo. Opponents criticized incumbent Sandu for the poor economic situation, and pro-Kremlin propaganda successfully spread the narrative that joining the European Union would mean Moldova’s immediate involvement in the bloody war in Ukraine.
“But even voters who oppose President Sandu know that their head of state is free from corruption,” said Tiina Ilsen. “It is precisely due to her integrity that Sandu is the first president in Moldova’s history to be re-elected to office. Sandu’s character proves to Moldovans that non-corrupt politicians also exist in their country.”
In contrast, an investigation by TV8 before the second round revealed that her rival candidate, Stoianoglo, had accepted bribes from a businessman and was closely connected to the oligarch Shor.
According to the investigation, Stoianoglo spent last Christmas with his family at the luxury hotel in the Czech spa resort Karlovy Vary, but the bill of approximately 9,000 euros was paid by Moldovan businessman Mihail Apostol. Apostol, who lives in Romania, has generously funded oligarch Shor’s charitable projects, even though his modest business income does not allow for it. Apostol himself refused to answer journalists’ questions about whether Shor had used him as a front to finance his projects.
Photo: Youtube, screenshot.
TV8 also highlighted the close connections between Shor, who is leading an anti-EU and anti-President Sandu campaign, and Stoianoglo. The two men lived in the same building for decades and have been family friends for a long time. In 2015, Stoianoglo’s then 19-year-old daughter, Cristina, bought an apartment in the same building for approximately $46,000. This transaction is now being investigated criminally on suspicion of illicit enrichment.
In Moldova, significant attention was also given to an article by the Brussels-based publication Politico, which reported that Stoianoglo‘s youngest daughter, Corina, works in the field of cybersecurity at the European Central Bank. Politico questioned why the daughter of a presidential candidate with anti-European views and support from the Kremlin was allowed to work in a sensitive ECB department that handles confidential information.
Anti-Sandu narratives
“One of the manipulation tactics highlighted by our Moldovan partners was the deepening of the divide between Moldovans living in the country and those living abroad,” pointed out Tiina Ilsen from PractNet. “Unfortunately, this narrative continues to be amplified even after the presidential elections, and pro-Kremlin forces are sure to use it in the 2025 parliamentary elections.”
Since the result of the EU referendum was determined by the large Moldovan community living in Europe, pro-Kremlin (joint) media channels began to contrast these two groups of citizens.
“According to this narrative, the pro-European sentiment of Moldovans living abroad and their support for the pro-European president showed their detachment from the realities of their homeland,” said Ilsen. “It was also claimed in the anti-Sandu agitation that Chișinău’s political leadership divides society into ‘good’ and ‘bad’ Moldovans. The president was accused of favoring the foreign Moldovans who ‘saved’ the referendum result over their compatriots struggling at home.”
Photo: Moldovan Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
Not all opponents united against Sandu
Before the second round, President Sandu surprised Stoianoglo with an aggressive approach during their first debate, accusing him, for example, of downplaying the war in Ukraine. She cited that Moldovan children were also being treated at a cancer hospital in Kyiv that was hit by bombings in the summer. Sandu also reminded voters during the debate of her opponent’s dual citizenship – Stoianoglo holds a Romanian passport as well. While such dual citizenship is common in Moldova, it is frowned upon for a president.
In their first head-to-head debate, which had no moderator, Stoianoglo performed so poorly against the incumbent president that he withdrew from the next televised debate.
After the first round, there was concern that nearly all the presidential candidates who were eliminated would recommend their supporters vote against Maia Sandu, but this did not happen.
Renato Usatîi, who received 13.79% of the votes in the first round, Andrei Năstase (0.64%), and Tudor Ulianovschi (0.52%) called on their supporters to vote according to their conscience. Natalia Morari (0.61%), Irina Vlah (5.38%), Ion Chicu (2.06%), and Vasile Tarlev (3.19%) urged their supporters to vote against Maia Sandu. Victoria Furtună (4.45%) called on her supporters to vote for Stoianoglo, while Octavian Țîcu (0.93%) urged supporters to vote against Stoianoglo.
