From “under the table” work, to mayoral candidate

How does, in documents, the past of a candidate who wants to manage a city look

There is a simple test for any politician asking for people’s votes: to check how they managed their own affairs. Not the electoral slogans. Not the posters. Not the campaign live streams. But the official documents.

In the case of Ramiz Ansarov, the public records of the courts and the State Registry paint a picture that raises serious questions about how he has managed his companies over the years.

The consulted files reveal three essential things: a Labor Inspectorate control resulting in 34 violations of labor legislation, an employee used for five months without a contract and without a salary, and also three lawsuits filed in 2026 for unpaid debts.

All of these appear in official, public, and verifiable documents.

The business card of the company that appears in the center of the files

Before delving into the court files, it’s worth taking a look at the “technical sheet” of the company associated today with Ramiz Ansarov.

The data is extracted from the State Register of Legal Entities and aggregated on the data2b.md platform:

At first glance, nothing unusual: a local company engaged in commerce. However, problems arise when the company’s activity is viewed through the lens of court documents.

Three trials in a few weeks: the same company, the same plaintiff

In the spring of 2026, the name of the LLC “ART-FAMILY” appears three times on the portal of the Balti Court, all cases being initiated by the same company – LLC “TORECO”.

Subject of the proceedings: debt collection.

The first case is registered on March 19, 2026 and subsequently returned. A few weeks later, on April 6, the plaintiff returns to court with a new action.

For those who are not familiar with legal language, this usually means that the attempts to amicably recover the money have failed, and the business partner has chosen the path of litigation.

The natural question that arises is: how does a company that has been active for over a decade end up being repeatedly sued for unpaid debts?

The audit that revealed 34 irregularities

The most serious documented episode, however, appears in a 2016 misdemeanor decision.

On March 22, 2016, the Bălți Territorial Labor Inspectorate is conducting a check at “Sacris Comerț” LLC, a company then managed by the same Ramiz Ansarov.

The result of the inspection is a rare one: 34 violations found in a single check.

Subsequently, the Balti Court confirms these violations through decision 4-179/2016.

Five months of work without a contract and without pay

The most serious finding in the file concerns the case of an employee who, according to the documents, worked from September 2015 until January 2016 without an individual employment contract.

The inspectors found that: there was no employment order; the work book had not been completed; the record of working time was not kept; the salary had not been paid.

In practice, the man worked for five months without legal protection and without remuneration.

Only after the intervention of the Labor Inspectorate was the situation officially documented.

Zero internal rules and the basic lack of labor protection

The ITM control has further revealed the almost total absence of mandatory internal rules in a company.

The inspectors found that the company did not have an internal regulation, an annual leave schedule, wage payment slips, personnel records presented to the authorities, nor a shift work schedule for the guards.

More seriously, the deficiencies also included the security and health of the employees.

According to the decision, the enterprise leader had not undergone the mandatory training in the field of occupational safety. The employees’ training records were missing. There were no medical examinations at hiring and periodically, professional risks were not evaluated. Moreover, there were neither first aid kits nor safety instructions for the activities carried out.

“We have eliminated irregularity”, but only after inspection

In court, the administrator fully acknowledged his guilt and stated that the irregularities have been rectified.

The court applied the minimum sanction provided by law: a fine of 5,000 lei.

In other words, for 34 irregularities observed simultaneously, the average penalty was about 147 lei for each violation.

From “Sacris Comerț” to “ART-FAMILY”

The documents show that problems arise in two different companies:

• LLC “Sacris Commerce” – the company sanctioned in 2016;
• “ART-FAMILY” Ltd. – the company targeted in 2026 in the processes concerning debts.

There are no public documents to demonstrate a direct legal continuity between the two companies, yet the same administrator name and the same business management pattern appear.

In addition, on the court’s portal, Ramiz Ansarov also appears in a civil case from 2019 regarding the recovery of a debt, this time in the capacity of plaintiff.

What do all these have to do with the mayor’s role

Supporters of the candidate might argue that issues within private companies have no connection to public administration.

However, the role of mayor involves exactly the skills that are called into question in these documents: managing employees; handling money; complying with legislation; ensuring workplace safety; dealing with economic agents.

The mayor is, essentially, the administrator of a city.

And the public documents raise the question of whether someone who has accumulated such problems in their own business can effectively and fairly manage a public institution.

Three questions before voting

Before the elections, each voter can decide for themselves how relevant this information is.

But public documents inevitably raise three questions. If an employee has worked for months without a contract and without a salary, how will the rights of the employees of a city hall be respected? If a company repeatedly ends up in court for debts, how will the finances of a city be managed? If the law has been systematically violated in a private business, what guarantees are there that it will be respected in public administration?

The answers will be given by the voters.

And the official documents, indeed, already exist.