In the framework of the present article, the investigation of the specifics of the offence under art.238 of the Penal Code of Republic of Moldova is continued. It is shown that, in the case of the false documents submitted to the financial institution having a formal character, the competition between art.238 (viewed as a special norm) and art.361 PC RM (viewed as a general norm) appears. It is argued that responsibility is applied under art.42 and 238 PC RM to the person that manufactures false crediting documentation (even if it has an official nature), in order that another person submits it to the financial institution. It is explained why the use of the obtained credit facilities exceeds the framework of the offence specified in art.238 PC RM, representing the time of its depletion. It is shown that, while assessing the adverse consequences, stipulated in art.238 PC RM, the benefits missed after committing the offence, which can grow exponentially and unsteady, can not be taken into account, hence, that an unpredictable evolution. There are presented convincing arguments in support of the thesis that the purpose of temporary use, and not the aim of theft, is the one pursued by the offender in the case of committing the loan acquisition by fraud.