In connection with the fact that the prosecutor submitted amendments to the indictment, a break was declared in the case today, as the defendants and their defenders asked for time to familiarize themselves with the amended indictment and prepare for the further trial.
The Supreme Court (AT) annulled the 2021 verdict of the Riga Regional Court, by which all the defendants in the so-called digital television criminal case were acquitted.
On July 12, 2021, the Court of Appeals acquitted all the defendants in the criminal case regarding the project for the introduction of terrestrial digital television in 2002-2003 and, accordingly, the contract concluded by JSC “Digital Latvian Radio and Television Center” (DLRTC) with the company ”Kempmayer Media Limited”.
The panel of the Riga Regional Court’s Criminal Court – presiding judge Aina Nicmane, judges Iveta Brimerberga and Daiga Kalniņa – stated that the basis for issuing an acquittal verdict is Article 519, Clause 1 of the Law on Criminal Procedure, that is, the court did not find that the crimes committed by the defendants constituted a criminal offense.
With the pronounced verdict, Andrejs Ēķis, Jurģis Liepnieks, Guntars Spunde, Jānis Loze, Harijs Krongorns, Jānis Sveždhons, Jānis Zips, Uldis Kokins were declared innocent, but the part of the criminal proceedings against Māris Paudera was decided to be terminated.
The prosecutor filed a cassation protest against this verdict, which was satisfied by the Supreme Court, and the case must be heard again in the district court.
The digital television criminal case is related to the agreement between DLRTC and “Kempmayer Media Limited” subsidiary “Kempmayer Media Latvia”, which provided for the introduction of digital television in several stages and the delivery of various specific equipment for digital broadcasting to Latvia. The total cost of the project was previously estimated in tens of millions of lats.
In the summer of 2019, the appellate court found a number of persons guilty in the case.
The judges of the district court sentenced the former officials of “Kempmayer Media Latvia” (“Kempmayer”) to actual imprisonment. The court sentenced the former member of the Kempmayer board, Svejdhonas, to two years and nine months in prison, as well as a fine of 22,790 euros, Zabecki – to two years and nine months in prison, and the former member of the Kempmayer board, Zipa, was sentenced to one term of imprisonment. years and nine months, as well as a fine of 22,790 euros.
Former DLRTC Director General Spunde was sentenced to nine months in prison and fined €26,230. On the other hand, the court sentenced lawyer Lozem to one year and nine months in prison and a fine of 33,540 euros.
The regional court previously fined Politechnologist Liepnieks 67,080 euros, and the former owner of the TV channel “LNT” Eħis was fined 40,850 euros by the court of appeal.
At the same time, the appellate court previously acquitted the former director of the National Theater Ojaras Rubenis, who was convicted in the court of first instance. The judges of the Riga District Court also acquitted the former state trustee of the “Latvian State Radio and Television Center” (LVRTC) Didzi Jonova, business consultant Valdi Purvinski and LVRTC state trustee Adrian Boldanas. The court of first instance had sentenced each of them to a fine of 18,000 euros.
On the other hand, the Supreme Administrative Court canceled the judgment of the appellate instance and the case was once again brought to the Riga Regional Court.
The LETA agency already reported that the Court of Economic Affairs decided to acquit all the defendants in the second digital television criminal case. Among the defendants were ex-politician Andris Škēle, politician Ainārs Šlesers (LPV), former chairman of the board of SIA “Tet” Juris Gulbis and others.
An appeal was filed against the verdict. The Riga District Court also found the defendants innocent. The full judgment of the regional court was drawn up on December 18, which was appealed to the Supreme Court.
Time.news Interview: Exploring the Digital Television Criminal Case with Legal Expert Dr. Laura Filipsone
Time.news Editor (T.E.): Welcome, Dr. Filipsone. We appreciate you joining us today to discuss the recent developments in the digital television criminal case. The Supreme Court’s decision to annul the 2021 verdict by the Riga Regional Court has generated significant public interest. What do you think this means for the legal proceedings moving forward?
Dr. Laura Filipsone (D.F.): Thank you for having me. The Supreme Court’s decision is quite impactful; it essentially resets the legal clock. By annulling the previous acquittal, the case will now go back to the district court for a fresh evaluation, which means that the defendants will have to prepare their defenses anew, and the prosecutors get a second chance to present their case.
T.E.: Why do you think the Supreme Court was prompted to intervene in this case? From the information we have, there was a cassation protest filed by the prosecutor against the acquittal. What does that entail?
D.F.: A cassation protest is a legal mechanism that allows for the review of a lower court’s decision, typically on the grounds of an apparent misapplication of law or factual principles. The prosecutor likely believed that the acquittal was unfounded based on the evidence at hand. The Supreme Court took this concern seriously, particularly because the original verdict stated that the actions of the defendants did not amount to criminal offenses under the law. The highest court must ensure that legal standards are met and upheld.
T.E.: In our coverage, we mentioned that the digital television criminal case relates to a contract between the Digital Latvian Radio and Television Center and Kempmayer Media Limited. Can you explain the significance of this case from a broader perspective?
D.F.: Certainly. This case touches on issues of accountability in public contracting, especially involving millions of lats. It reflects broader concerns about the transparency and integrity of public projects. The introduction of digital television was a significant technological shift for Latvia, and it’s crucial that such initiatives are managed professionally and ethically. If misconduct is involved, it risks public trust in both the institutions and the companies handling such substantial projects.
T.E.: The article also notes that, in the past, several persons associated with Kempmayer Media Latvia were convicted. What consequences could stem from these prior convictions that would affect the current proceedings?
D.F.: The previous convictions set a precedent in this case, as they create an established narrative of misconduct connected to the project. The court may look at past decisions to assess the credibility of the defendants and the legitimacy of the charges against them. Additionally, it may affect public opinion, as those previously convicted can influence how the jury or judge perceives the current defendants’ actions.
T.E.: Given the complexities of this case, what are the next steps for both the defendants and the prosecutors now that a new trial is on the horizon?
D.F.: The defendants will need to thoroughly review the amended indictment and possibly gather new evidence or witnesses to bolster their defenses. They will likely also be reassessing their legal strategies given the Supreme Court’s indications. For the prosecutors, it means two things: re-evaluating their case in light of the Supreme Court’s decision and preparing to demonstrate why the acquittal was incorrect. Both sides will need to be prepared for a potentially lengthy and complex trial process.
T.E.: what do you think the outcome of this renewed trial could mean for future cases in Latvia, especially those involving public contracts?
D.F.: This case could set significant legal precedents regarding accountability and transparency in public procurement. If the court finds that there were indeed wrongdoing and penalties imposed, it could send a strong message that corruption—whether in small or large projects—will not be tolerated. It will be a close watch for how both legal professionals and government entities will approach public contracts in the future.
T.E.: Thank you, Dr. Filipsone, for sharing your expertise on this complicated issue. We will continue to follow the developments closely and appreciate your insights.
D.F.: Thank you for having me. It’s crucial to keep the public informed on such sensitive and significant matters.