Previously, Prosecutor General Juris Stukāns had already submitted the same proposal to the Legal Commission of the Saeima. Objections to the proposal were expressed by business organizations, expressing their dissatisfaction with the fact that the organizations were not informed about such a proposal at all and no discussion took place – instead, the proposal was submitted for the 2nd reading of the draft law on the strengthening of criminal liability for animal torturers. Business representatives expressed that they see risks in the proposal that will have negative consequences for the business environment in Latvia. “It is important to strengthen the business environment, however, prison sentences for businessmen are not the right direction” – emphasized Kaspars Gorkšs, director general of the Confederation of Latvian Employers (LDDK).
Similarly, objections to the proposal of the Prosecutor General came from the Ministry of Economy, which also saw significant risks in determining such criminal liability. At that time, the Ministry of Economy also informed that, in parallel, work is already underway to strengthen administrative responsibility, which should be recognized as a much more proportionate approach to competition violations.
Discussions about the proposal heated up at the meeting of the Legal Commission on March 26, when the head of the commission, Andrejas Yudins, raised his voice and no longer gave a word to businessmen’s representatives. After long discussions, the Prosecutor General’s proposal was not supported at this commission meeting. Despite the above, Andrejs Yudins again submitted the same proposal in another draft law, which was prepared on the strengthening of criminal liability for illegal financing of political parties.
This time, too, both the Ministry of Economy and business organizations objected to the progress of the proposal, reprimanding that the principle of good legislation is not respected – contrary to the decision of the Consultative Council of the Competition Council, such an important proposal, which would affect the entire business environment, is not forwarded through the Cabinet of Ministers, thus not ensuring consultation with the public . “LDDK members have questions about transparency, how these proposals appear and to what extent there is an opportunity to get involved in the discussion processes” – this time expressed LDDK General Director Kaspars Gorkš.
Similarly, representatives of businessmen repeatedly pointed out that supporting the proposal will have a negative impact on the business environment, as it should be created in which the state shows confidence in businessmen, instead of putting businessmen in prison. After the exchange of opinions, in which several other members of the Saeima also expressed criticism of this proposal, the discussions at the June 12th session of the Legal Commission also became personal, with the head of the commission, Andreja Yudin, expressing criticism that “after our vote, I am glad that we are recording now, it will be seen , who tolerates corruption in the private sector”, as well as expressing: “very good that we will have it on audio recordings”. At the commission meeting, the majority of deputies did not support the proposal again. From the mentioned statements of Yudin, it could be concluded that the terms ‘corruption’ and ‘competition’ are mixed up. Finally, Andrejs Yudins urged the deputies to support his proposal to the Saeima at the September 5 plenary session.
The proposal was defended in the debate by members of the “New Unity” and “Progressives”. However, the majority of the Saeima joined the commission’s earlier decision that such an initiative is not supportable. During the debate on the proposal at the Saeima session on September 5, several MPs criticized that too much is being tried to criminalize everything and punish businessmen, thus creating a police state. “Let’s trust a businessman for once” – came from the podium of the Saeima. It should be noted that if Andrejs Yudin’s proposal is supported, Latvia would not be the first country where criminal liability is provided for competition violations.
Such regulation also exists in Hungary, Poland, Romania, Russia and other countries. At the same time, many countries, such as Sweden, the Netherlands and Finland, follow a different approach, which does not involve imprisoning entrepreneurs, instead imposing administrative penalties for competition violations.
2024-09-10 02:08:28