Jānis Citskovskis, the former Director of the State Chancellery, appeared in court Tuesday to deny all charges in the high-profile investigation into the travel expenses of former Prime Minister Krišjānis Kariņš. In a session marked by accusations of political pressure and procedural failures, Citskovskis rejected the claim that he is responsible for nearly 90,000 euros in state losses, suggesting instead that he was positioned as a scapegoat for decisions made at the highest levels of government.
The legal battle, often referred to as the “flights case,” centers on the procurement of five special charter flights for the former Prime Minister’s delegations. Prosecutors allege that these flights were ordered in violation of budget laws and that commercial alternatives were available, which would have saved the state a significant sum. While the prosecution focuses on the administrative inaction of the State Chancellery, Citskovskis argues that the responsibility lies solely with those who ordered the services.
As the case moves toward a trial involving a dozen witnesses, the proceedings have expanded beyond simple budgetary disputes. Citskovskis has now publicly claimed he was pressured by staff in the current Prime Minister Evika Siliņa’s office to accept responsibility for the charter flights, asserting that he was told doing so would be in everyone’s interest and that the matter would eventually be resolved.
The Conflict Over Budgetary Authority
Prosecutor Dāvids Gurevičs outlined the state’s case, asserting that Citskovskis failed in his statutory duty to control the use of budget funds within the Prime Minister’s Office. According to the prosecution, this negligence led to the procurement of five charter flights that exceeded legal limits, resulting in a direct loss of 89,382 euros to the Latvian state.
The prosecution’s argument rests on the premise that as the head of the State Chancellery, Citskovskis was the ultimate guarantor of the lawful and efficient use of funds for the Prime Minister’s foreign trips. They further noted that the funds used for these charters were originally allocated under the 2022 state budget law specifically for safe travel during the Covid-19 pandemic, yet the trips in question took place after the state of emergency had officially ended.
Citskovskis countered this narrative, stating that it was legally impossible for him to revoke decisions made directly by the Prime Minister and executed by the Prime Minister’s Office. He maintained that the core of the legal dispute is not his inaction, but whether the use of the flights was lawful in the first place—a determination he insists only the court can build.
Allegations of Surveillance and Political Pressure
Beyond the financial charges, Citskovskis has raised serious concerns regarding the conduct of the Corruption Prevention and Combating Bureau (KNAB). In recent disclosures, the former official revealed that his phone conversations, including private discussions with family members, were monitored for several months during the investigation.
Citskovskis described the discovery of this surveillance as disgusting, accusing law enforcement of cowardice for failing to apply the same investigative rigor to high-ranking state officials. He further alleged that KNAB relied on false information when requesting court permission to intercept his communications.
This sense of betrayal extends to his professional exit. Citskovskis, who served as Director of the State Chancellery from 2017 until July 2024, was demoted in early July of this year following the flight scandal. He subsequently resigned in protest. During his testimony and subsequent interviews, he admitted to providing misleading information to journalists in the past regarding flight funding and staff remuneration, but claimed he did so under direct instructions from the Prime Minister’s Office.
Evidence Gaps and Audit Discrepancies
The court hearing likewise highlighted significant technical failures in the prosecution’s handling of evidence. Defense lawyer Sanita Bokta-Strautmane informed the judge that several key materials, including audio recordings and emails, were submitted in a format that the defense cannot open. The evidence, stored on Blu-ray discs due to their large volume, is reportedly only accessible via equipment held by the prosecution.
The judge characterized the situation as unacceptable, noting that neither the court nor the defense can review evidence that is effectively locked away. The court has ordered a full examination of the ten volumes of the case to identify and rectify these deficiencies before the trial proceeds.
a stark discrepancy exists between the prosecution’s claims and the findings of the State Audit Office. While the criminal charges focus on a loss of roughly 89,000 euros, auditors have suggested that the unjustified expenditures associated with Kariņš’ special flights were significantly higher, totaling approximately 545,000 euros across the budgets of Latvia and the Council of the European Union.
| Source | Estimated Loss/Unjustified Expense | Scope of Analysis |
|---|---|---|
| Prosecution/KNAB | 89,382 euros | Five specific charter flights |
| State Audit Office | ~545,000 euros | Broad organization of special flights |
The Path Forward
The case remains complex, involving a web of subordinates and superiors. While the prosecution concluded that Citskovskis bore the ultimate responsibility as the institution’s head, the State Audit Office noted that decision-making involved the former Prime Minister, the Prime Minister’s Office—then headed by current Saeima deputy Jānis Patmalnieks—and the State Chancellery.
Citskovskis has expressed a desire for full transparency, telling the judge he had no objections to the media recording the proceedings because society must see what is happening in the court session.
The next hearing is scheduled for May 19 at 10:00. The court is expected to summon 12 witnesses and one consultant to clarify the chain of command and the legality of the flight authorizations.
Disclaimer: This article reports on ongoing legal proceedings. All individuals are presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.
Do you believe administrative heads should be held criminally liable for the decisions of elected leaders? Share your thoughts in the comments below.
