Both the Ventspils City Council deputy Aivars Lembergs, who is accused of crimes of corruption, and prosecutor Aivis Zalužinskis promise to appeal the verdict recently announced by Riga Regional Court in the so-called Lembergs criminal case.
Latvian residents are both surprised and disappointed with the softened sentence given to the accused [more here]. This is why BNN has asked Chief Prosecutor Juris Juriss to provide his opinion about the trial. Prosecutor Zalužinskis works in the Money Laundering Prevention Coordination Unit of the Prosecutor General’s Office. Juriss was previously on the prosecutors maintaining charges when Lembergs criminal case was being viewed by Riga Regional Court as the court of first instance.
People in politics often say: the budget is good only when no one is happy with it. Does this apply to court verdicts?
– It is exactly the opposite, because this is about justice, not finances. This category – justice – must dominate in court verdicts – understanding it, perceiving it, comparing experience with other verdicts. If a verdict is fair, Latvia’s society will perceive as fair.
However, there is one “but”! Specifically how our international partners and organisations we are part of perceive this verdict. For example, Moneyval and OECD, as well as other partners we cooperate with in crime prevention.
This is no minor issue! No one forced us to join these organisations – we wanted to join. We wanted their recommendations.
One other important issue – is the penalty dissuasive? Moneyval and OECD had previously criticised Latvia for not complying with recommendations.
International organisations believe the penalties enforced in Latvia are not dissuasive.
Our society has a similar opinion about this.
What are the criticisms about the verdict announced by Riga Regional Court this Wednesday?
– So then, what do we see and what do we disagree with, what we hope to review in the appeal? Every official in Latvia who chooses to conduct business secretly – including by using companies in various liberal tax jurisdictions, so-called offshores – and hide his or her participation in these companies with the help of other natural or legal persons, to make a profit (benefit), has a conflict of interest. It takes the form of significant damage and threat, and this indicates officials’ corrupt actions, and this must be the subject of criminal liability.
What we see now is that Section 325 of the Criminal Law – officials working in a conflict of interests – has remained outside the court’s ruling.
We also believe the penalty should be more severe when officials take a responsible position. Legislators have made it clear which officials fall in this category. By paying special attention to them, the punishment must be more severe so that it is fair and dissuasive. Otherwise society may get the impression “small fish get big penalties, and the big fish get small penalties”. The court verdict should show this is not the case.
This is highly important to explain to society, and our international experts have criticised Latvia about multiple times. This is observed in Latvian society and abroad – this problem does exist.
It is also important for the prosecution for officials to comply with the duty to declare property. This is a preventive measure against corruption – when an official fills out a declaration, it becomes clear to the public that he or she will not work in a situation of conflict of interest and will not secretly make decisions in favour of his or her company.
This is what we are committed to fighting in the next instance.
How would you comment on Aivars Lembergs’ announcement that the “verdict is illegal”?
– As a person accused of a crime, he has the right to defence. Lembergs implements it this way. This is this person’s defence position. This is his choice – perhaps there is some other [position]. We are not the ones who can comment here, nor can we really focus on it.
How would you score prosecutor Zalužinskis’ work in this appeal process?
– Currently there is reason to believe he has fulfilled all the requirements expected of a prosecutor. During the trial Aivis did not voice any single-handed opinions – we had discussed and prepared all of them in advance.
It was our deliberate – and coordinated with management – action, that only one of the prosecutors was “visibly” participating in this appeal. There was no need for two or three prosecutors to be present all the time.
In the beginning – the court of first instance – there were four of you, prosecutors I mean.
– You see, the situation differs a lot between the first and second instance. In the first instance each prosecutor actively participated in the interrogation of persons and examination of evidence in the area entrusted to them. In the appeal we could not find out anything new (and we didn’t). The other side repeated the arguments we heard in the first instance.
Prosecutors Ilga Paegle, Jānis Ilsters and Juris Juriss at the 6th September 2010 hearing of “Lembergs criminal case” at Riga Regional Court. Photo: Evija Trifanova/LETAWhat professional conclusions did you make after this verdict?
– Analysing the progress of this appeal process, new holes continue appearing in the procedural framework. These “holes” lead to the prolongation of the process.
I’ll ask this just for safety’s sake: do we undermine the authority of the judiciary system by discussing and criticising the verdict? Are we not putting pressure on its independence by implying that the court is influenced, doesn’t know how to implement the harshness of the law and, who knows, perhaps is even incompetent?
– I’ll put it like this: let’s start with ourselves! Investigation institution workers, prosecutors and judges have to be prepared to answer questions asked by society. People have to be prepared to accept criticisms – earned and unjustified alike. Most importantly – they have to be prepared to explain the verdict is what it is.
They have to be prepared for society to be of a different mind. Prosecutors, other judges and representatives of international organisations may have completely different opinions as well. Opinions have to be justified. If it turns out incorrect – it should be changed.
Also read: Court’s ruling in “Lembergs criminal case” unlikely to come into force soon