“Big” corruption cases in Latvia are rare because of the lack of operational staff. On top of that, corrupt individuals rarely use technical means easily controlled by law enforcers, as mentioned in the report provided by the prosecution office.
Often during discussions in the non-government sector, as well as discussions in the public space, it is stressed that in recent years there has been a shortage of so-called big corruption cases, the prosecution office stressed, adding that the lack of criminal procedures involving state officials is associated with insufficient efficiency of competent law enforcement institutions.
The prosecution office explains that it is mainly possible to uncover big corruption crimes through operational activities. This is the most important stage of any investigation and evidence gathering. Without evidence in this stage, completion of pre-trial criminal procedure and submission of criminal cases to a court of law based on other evidence is unlikely.
The possible reasons for the lack of so-called “big” corruption cases include insufficient number of operatives to respond in a timely manner to fragments of recorded conversations that contain signs of bribery, as well as to analyse more voluminous recordings of conversations, the prosecutor’s office explains.
There is also insufficient competence to identify the criminal significance of the conversations, including the signs of specific bribery offences.
To fix the aforementioned problems, it is necessary to provide quality training for operational staff,
as well as expansion of technical, tactical and methodical capabilities, the prosecution office’s management suggests.
The prosecution office estimates that the penalties requested by prosecutors for crimes committed in service to state institutions are gradually becoming harsher and harsher. This applies to all penalties – fines, community service, and deprivation of freedom.
When comparing the sentences requested by prosecutors and sentenced by courts for criminal offence in the service of state institutions, it is important to take into account that the courts are not bound neither by the type of punishment requested by the prosecutor nor by the amount thereof, the prosecutor’s office emphasizes. Courts may impose both harsher and lighter punishment than the punishment requested by the prosecutor.
Prosecutors have often asked courts of law to impose the harshest penalty – deprivation of liberty without a suspended sentence – for the most serious misconduct, namely overstepping of official powers, abuse of office, inaction of a public official and bribery. Also, courts impose conditional prison sentences more often than they are requested by prosecutors.
Zero tolerance towards dishonest officials and active actions to prevent such cases is one of the priorities of the prosecution office.
Also read: Supreme Court Chairman says terms for investigation of criminal cases in Latvia are very good
Also read: Saeima asked to look into Aivars Lembergs’ suggestion to not provoke Russia
Follow us on Facebook and X!