Deputy of the Latvian parliament Aldis Adamovičs has lost his mandate due to a guilty verdict, as reported by LTV.
The Saeima deputy was punished for fraud with compensation paid for rented apartment and forgery of documents. In August 2021 Riga City Vidzeme Suburb Court sentenced Adamovičs to a fine of EUR 6 000 for transport and residential space rent compensation fraud.
The court also issued a prohibition for him to serve as a member of the Saeima for one year and one month.
Adamovičs appealed the verdict but the court left the original verdict unchanged.
BNN previously reported that the politician denied his guilt in the wrongdoings he is accused of.
In autumn of 2020 Corruption Prevention and Combating Bureau (KNAB) requested the Saeima deputy to be prosecuted in accordance with three sections of the Criminal Law – fraud, abuse of official power and forgery of official documents.
After studying the case, prosecutor Ando Skalbe presented official charges for fraud and forgery of official documents.
According to the prosecution, the deputy is accused of defrauding EUR 83 transport cost compensation and apartment rent compensation of EUR 3 150 paid for a seven-month period.
The Saeima voted in favour of allowing Adamovičs’ criminal prosecution on 8 October 2020.
The deputy’s defence attorney Ieva Garanča previously said that in Adamovičs’ case this is about interpretations of regulations.
«Saeima deputies have a right to receive compensation for rent of residential space, but there is no mention of the amount of time an official has to spent in the rented apartment. The question is about the frequency or the amount of time a deputy needs to stay at an apartment for which he or she is paid a compensation to rent,» said the defence attorney.
As for transport cost compensation and alleged fraudulent activities related to them, there are two receipt KNAB has complaints about. The Saeima deputy admitted having made a mistake in one case, which is why the receipt was annulled and the compensation previously paid to him has been paid back to the state. In the second case the deputy and his defence do not deny the fact that there was refuelling performed for a vehicle not owned by Adamovičs. However, he claims he had used the car in question to travel to work, which means there was no violation committed. Nevertheless, even in this case he has paid back the compensation amount to the state budget, according to Adamovičs’ defence.
According to him, he filled the tank of a car he didn’t own because his own car was experiencing technical difficulties at the time.