Mihai is a mediator and an expert in anti-money laundering and financial legal matters. He stands out for his punctuality, perseverance, and a responsible approach to risk management. Dedicated and rigorous, he addresses challenges through innovative methods grounded in thorough analysis of data and the legislative framework.
Education
2011–2014
Academy of Economic Studies
Faculty of Finance and Banking
2010–2012
Academy of Sciences of Moldova
Master's Degree in National Security
2006–2010
Moldova State University
Faculty of Law
Experience
- •2025-present – Mediator
- •2024-2025 – Expert in Asset Recovery of Criminal Property, GIZ
- •2021-present – Expert in Anti-Money Laundering (AML) and Anti-Corruption, "Soțchi & Partners"
- •2020-2021 – Deputy General Director, Public Property Agency
- •2020 – Head of Institutional Management Section, Anti-Money Laundering Department, National Anticorruption Center (NAC)
- •2018-2020 – Senior Specialist, AML, NAC
- •2014-2018 – Investigation Officer, AML, NAC
- •2013-2014 – Member of the Delegation of the Republic of Moldova to the MONEYVAL Committee, Council of Europe
- •2013-2014 – Head of the Anti-Money Laundering and Countering the Financing of Terrorism (AML/CFT) Service, National Commission for Financial Markets (NCFM)
- •2010-2013 - Legal Advisor, NCFM
Relevant Experience
Recent publications by Mihai Sotchi

Confirmation of a mediation settlement. Limits of judicial review in recent case law
A mediation settlement does not become enforceable automatically; it must be confirmed by the court under the Civil Procedure Code. Recent case law shows that courts conduct an effective review of the legality, clarity and evidentiary basis of the obligations assumed by the parties. This article examines the main grounds on which Moldovan courts have refused to confirm mediation settlements, particularly where claims are unclear, insufficiently documented or may affect third-party rights.
Read more →
Real KYC versus formal KYC: when internal policy is no longer enough
In practice, many companies limit themselves to a formal KYC, i.e. adopting internal policies, collecting documents and filling out forms, without actually applying them. This model only produces the appearance of compliance, without ensuring real control over risks. In contrast, a real KYC involves an ongoing process: correctly identifying the customer and the beneficial owner, assessing risks, periodically updating data, monitoring transactions and keeping evidence that justifies the decisions made.
Read more →