The decision of the appellate instance is illegal, therefore a cassation complaint will be filed against it, said the former mayor of Ventspils, current member of the Ventspils council Aivars Lembergs (“For Latvia and Ventspils”), evaluating the verdict of the appellate instance in his criminal case.
The decision of the appellate instance is illegal, therefore a cassation complaint will be filed against it, said the former mayor of Ventspils, current member of the Ventspils council Aivars Lembergs (“For Latvia and Ventspils”), evaluating the verdict of the appellate instance in his criminal case.
Lemberg believes that the court could not write a guilty verdict, because the prosecutor in his debate speech did not provide any counter-arguments to the arguments mentioned in the appeals, which the court could evaluate whether it agrees with the defense or the prosecution.
For example, Lemberg’s lawyer had about 100 arguments about laundering of money obtained through criminal means, with evidence.
“The prosecutor did not give any opinion on any of the arguments stated in my lawyer’s appeal. By not giving an opinion, he agreed with my lawyer’s arguments that the verdict of the first instance is illegal and should be cancelled,” Lemberg believes.
He also said that the court had decided to uphold the first instance verdict unchanged, which was left with all the errors, even wrong commas, not to mention the substance. On the other hand, the first instance, in Lemberg’s opinion, rewrote the prosecutor’s accusation. Such court action is undoubtedly illegal, said the defendant. Also in the debate, Lembergs emphasized that the court itself could not write a conviction, because the prosecutor did not do his job, that is, he did not put forward counter-arguments against the arguments of Lemberg’s lawyers.
As another circumstance, Lembergs mentioned the fact that the court decided to confiscate his property located abroad. However, according to the Criminal Procedure Law, property that has been seized can be confiscated. In 2007, Latvia made a decision to seize property, but in more than 15 years, Latvia’s decision to seize property abroad has not been legalized in any jurisdiction, in any country, that is, no request for legal assistance has been sent to implement the decision to seize property taken in Latvia. Taking into account that the property has not been seized abroad according to Latvian legislation, it cannot be confiscated, said Lembergs.
He considers the decision of the appellate instance as illegal, and the question is why the court has acted in this way. According to Lemberg, this is a political issue.
He emphasized that he will file a cassation appeal against the ruling and that it is already largely ready.
It has already been reported that the Riga Regional Court, as an appeal instance, on Wednesday found Lembergs guilty of a series of episodes of corrupt crimes, but reduced the prison sentence by a year.
The court decided to sentence him to four years in prison and confiscation of property. In the prison sentence, the appellate court, like the first instance, decided to count Lemberg’s time in custody and the time spent under house arrest.
The time spent in detention from March 14, 2007 to July 10, 2007 and from February 22, 2021 to February 25, 2022, as well as the time spent under house arrest from July 10, 2007 to 2008, were included in the sentence. .for February 22. This means that Lembergs spent a total of about 700 days in prison and under house arrest.
If that sentence goes into effect, Lemberg would have to serve about half of his sentence in prison, but he would be eligible for parole.
Lemberg was acquitted of part of the accusation.
Lemberg’s son, Henri Lemberg, was also sentenced to one year and 11 months behind bars by the court. The court also sentenced him to confiscation of property.
The former business partner of Aivars Lembergs, Ansim Sormuli, was also sentenced to a lesser sentence than in the first instance, namely deprivation of liberty for one year and nine months. His approximately one month in custody in 2007 was also included in the sentence. Sormul was also subject to confiscation of property.
The full judgment will be available on October 11.
It will still be possible to submit a cassation complaint or protest to the Supreme Court (AT) against the decision of the appellate instance. In that case, a session of senators is organized, where it is decided whether to initiate cassation proceedings at all.
The prosecutor has also already promised to submit a cassation protest, as he considers the sentence imposed on Lemberg to be inadequately small.
The Riga Regional Court, as the first instance, started considering this case already in 2009.
