The greatest deficiencies in the process of working out laws and normative acts are their poor justification by the government, so that it is unclear at what degree the bill able is to change the situation in a certain field, stated Mariana Calughin, Head of the Prevention and Civil Action Division of the Centre for Combating Economic Crimes and Corruption (CCCEC). The statement was made on Friday at a meeting of the Investigative Journalists Club themed “Anti-corruption Proofing Expertise of the legislation: achievements and prospects”, CCCEC being the body empowered by law to perform the permanent expertise of the corruptibility of bills and other normative drafts. According to the quoted source, what is even more worrying is the fact that some of the bills do not even provide a preliminary cost-benefit analysis which could justify the draft. Another participant in the meeting, Cristina Cojocaru, representative of the Centre for the Analysis and Prevention of Corruption (CAPC), mentioned that at the moment there are two bodies involved in the process of corruptibility expertise for legislative drafts: CCCEC – as the representative of the central authorities and CAPC – representing the civil society. The expertises performed by CAPC are an additional filter in cases when the organisation examines the draft laws which have already been analysed by CCCEC. CAPC examines only the bills, while the CCCEC experts also ensure the expertise of the normative acts issued by the Government. According to Cristina Cojocaru, CAPC worked out a study, putting under corruption proofing expertise a total of 202 draft legislative acts. In their reports, the CAPC experts formulated objections towards 2256 elements found in the drafts subjected to expertise. Of 1064 objections formulated in 117 expertise reports, 562 were accepted by the Legislative - representing an output of 52,8% of the corruption proofing reports presented by the CAPC experts. The findings made in 202 expert reports showed that the promotion of interests/benefits was found in 87 (43.1%) of the draft legislative acts, which were qualified by the experts as contrary to the public interest. 42 (20,8%) of the draft legislative acts put under expertise were assessed by the CAPC experts as generating damages, contrary to the public interest. Analysis of the promotion of some interests in the draft legislative acts from the point of view of the authors of these drafts proved a bigger rate, of 65%, of the drafts coming from the deputies in Parliament as compared to the initiatives of the Government, with a rate of 35%. The study also shows that of the total 202 draft legislative acts put under expertise, the informative note was attached only to 105 (52%) of the drafts posted on the Parliament’s website. Most of the informative notes (about 80%) to the draft legislative acts put under expertise were formal and general and did not explain the need to promote the draft. Thus, in many cases there was noticed the promotion of draft laws “for the purpose of executing the order of the Government”. Of 105 drafts subjected to corruption proofing which were accompanied by informative notes, economic-financial justification existed only in 6 cases (5.7%).