Supreme Court to enforce nearly EUR 1.5 million from ex-board members of Pasažieru vilciens

On Thursday, 4 November, Latvia’s Supreme Court’s Department of Criminal Cases decided to maintain the ruling of Riga Regional Court in accordance with which four ex-board members of Pasažieru vilciens were found guilty of abuse of power, as reported by the court.
In this criminal case ex-board members of PV Nils Freivalds, Mārtiņš Jirgens, Edmunds Kancēvičs and Jānis Pētersons are accused of abuse of power by signing a high-risk business deal for the supply of trains with Spanish Construcciones y Auxiliar de Ferrocarriles, S.A. (CAF).
According to the court, one of the accused was punished with a fine equal to 45 minimal monthly wages or EUR 19 350. The three other accused were fined EUR 17 200 each. All of them were also presented with prohibition to take elected posts in state and municipal businesses.
A compensation of EUR 1 484 945.95 was also enforced in favour of the state.
The court of first instance also found all of the accused guilty of abusing their power and causing considerable damages.
The appeal instance court had initially overturned the ruling of the court of first instance on no compensation of quantifiable damages and the accused were fined a compensation of nearly EUR 1.5 million in favour of the state.
The Supreme Court reviewed arguments of authors of the cassation complaint in regards to whether or not the accused were justifiably found guilty and whether or not the compensation in favour of the state was justifiably enforced.
The court found that based on the evidence available the court of first instance had justifiably concluded that the guilt of the men in question was proven beyond reasonable doubt.
In its ruling, the Supreme Court referenced the conclusion previously reached in case law, as well as the definition of state official as defined in Section 316 of the Criminal Law, adding that it is applicable for officials who perform duties in state businesses or officials who are authorized to operate with finances and assets of businesses.
In relation to the enforcement of compensation of damages in favour of the state, the Supreme Court decided that although initially no person was declared a victim, the court of appeal justifiably decided to enforce the compensation in favour of the state based on the request for compensation submitted by the prosecution. The appeal instance court justified its opinion with a reference to existing, checked and properly evaluated evidence and regulations, in accordance with which enforcement of compensation was ordered.
The Supreme Court also referenced another fact used in court practice: that is the prosecution submits a request for compensation of damages in favour of the state, it is not necessary to declare the state a victim.
The court admits that opposite to the opinion of the authors of the cassation complaint, the court of appeal instance concluded that the compensation request submitted by the prosecution is to be enforced from all of the accused in favour of the state because all of them were responsible for management of the business in question regardless of how their duties were distributed.
Four ex-board members of PV were put on trial for abuse of power when signing a high-risk business deal for the supply of trains with Spanish Construcciones y Auxiliar de Ferrocarriles, S.A. (CAF).
In April 2012 PV and CAF signed a contract for the supply of new trains to Latvia. However, later suspicions surfaced that the contract signed did not meet the initial procurement regulations. A new procurement was announced later under supervision from then the chairman of PV Artis Birkmanis. The deal fell through because trains turned out too expensive.