“We evaluated this decision and recognized that the SRS and the state’s interests have been violated. Therefore, the decision has been appealed, now we have to wait for the result,” said Šmite-Roķe.
It has already been reported that two weeks ago, the General Prosecutor’s Office terminated the part of the criminal proceedings against Martinson in connection with the tax evasion of SIA “Lucidus”, which he once owned, in the “builders’ case”, the newspaper “” reported on Tuesday, October 22.
It is about the so-called “builders’ case” that started in 2014. Several separate criminal proceedings have been separated from this case, and one of these separated criminal proceedings is about “Lucidus” tax evasion, causing the state more than 600,000 euros in damages. “” reports that at the beginning of October, the criminal proceedings were terminated in the part that refers directly to Martinson’s possible criminal responsibility.
The criminal process itself continues, and Martinson’s former managers appear as suspects. The decision was made two weeks ago by Anda Liepiņa, the prosecutor of the Riga Court District Prosecutor’s Office, who supervises the investigation of part of the “builders’ case”, according to the newspaper.
The prosecutor’s office believes that Martinsons, although at the time of the criminal offense he was both a co-owner of the company and a member of the board, he was not involved in any economic decisions when concluding contracts with companies for construction works, which the State Revenue Service suspected to be deliberately organized tax evasion schemes. participated.
The criminal activities incriminated by “Lucidus”, which are part of the criminal proceedings against Martinson, took place in the period from January 1, 2012 to August 20, 2014. During the period that partially coincides with this criminal activity, Martinson was also among the co-owners of the company – between 2008 and January 21, 2013, he owned 14% of the company’s shares.
Last year, Martinsons was sentenced to prison in another high-profile criminal trial, in which the former president of the Bank of Latvia, Ilmārs Rimševičs, was accused of bribery, but the court found Martinsons guilty of supporting Rimševičs bribery and money laundering.
In this case, the Riga District Court sentenced Martinson to five years in prison, and ordered the confiscation of his property in the amount of approximately 175,000 euros. The verdict was appealed and will be heard in the district court.
It has already been announced that the Competition Council (KP) in 2021 discovered a cartel of construction companies, whose members were involved in at least 70 procurements for a total contract amount of 687 million euros.
The KP fined ten companies involved in the construction cartel with a total of 16,652,927 euros. Among the ten fined companies are SIA “Skonto būve”, SIA “Latvijas energoceltnieks”, SIA “Velve”, SIA “Archers”, SIA “Rere būve”, SIA “Re & Re”, SIA “RBSSKALS būvvadība”, SIA “Abora” , “LNK Industries” and SIA “Merks”. The court “RBSSKALS construction management” had already been liquidated, so no sentence was imposed.
Eight of the ten construction companies fined by the KP appealed the decision of the KP to the Administrative District Court, but since several construction companies submitted appeals together with their parent companies, there are 13 companies as plaintiffs in the case.
The joint case was initiated against “Skonto būves”, “Latvijas energoceltnieka”, “Rere būves” and its parent company AS “Rere grupa”, “Archera”, “LNK Industries”, “Abora” and its parent company SIA “Tehnocentrs”, “Re & Re”, for the submissions of “LNK Industries” parent company SIA “LNK (Latvijas novelty complex)”, “Merks” and its parent company AS “Merko Ehitus” and “Archera” parent company AS “UGN”.
Two of the ten penalized companies did not appeal the decision of the KP – “Velve”, with which the KP agreed on a settlement and gave a positive opinion on the measures taken by the company to “restore the credibility” of the client, as well as “RBSSKALS būvvadība”.
In the event that the court pronounces an unfavorable verdict on the applicants, a fine will have to be paid and these companies will not be allowed to participate in public procurement for a certain period of time, as well as they will be able to start bringing claims against them for already implemented projects.