Interview with sworn attorney Jeļena Kvjatkovska.
How do you assess the acquittal of the former head of Latvijas Dzelzceļš Uģis Magonis and the Estonian businessman Oleg Osinovskis and the subsequent public statements of the Minister of Justice Jānis Bordāns (JKP) expressing outrage at the verdict and questioning the professionalism of Vidzeme District Court judge Kārlis Jansons?
Juris Jurašs built his political capital on the case of Magonis and Osinovskis - loud statements in the press, a reminder in each interview facilitated the entry of the New Conservative Party (Jaunā konservatīvā partija, JKP) into the Saeima and the Riga City Council. In connection with the case of Magonis and Osinovskis, the million allegedly promised to Jurašs was widely circulated, which has not been confirmed by any facts, because the case was closed without result. However, the consequence of the loud announcements is today's reality - the version the investigators constructed in court is not viable, it does not receive approval. We hear statements by the Minister of Justice Jānis Bordāns that are absolutely unacceptable in a democratic country, with which he interferes with the competence of the judiciary. The "uncompromising rule of law" responds to the Vidzeme District Court judge's judgment, without waiting for the full text of the judgement. It is unacceptable that the former employee of the Corruption Prevention and Combating Bureau (KNAB), current Saeima deputy Juris Jurašs (JKP) and the head of the Saeima Legal Affairs Committee are still trying to disguise their previous unthorough and very careless work with talks about the interests of “influential men”. The truth is that the "influential man" is himself and he now uses the powers and resources of the JKP party, far beyond what is accepted in a state governed by the rule of law.
What did Judge Kārlis Jansons not convict Magonis and Osinovskis of?
For all five years, two radically different realities have coexisted in this case. One that was heard in the public sphere from the very beginning and was distributed by seemingly trustworthy sources at the time. This is a version of investigators leaked by manipulating the media. Namely, the head of a high-level state-owned company allegedly received a huge bribe from an Estonian businessman. But the other - the actual materials collected by investigators and the prosecutor's office, which clearly revealed the working methods and quality of these institutions. Osinovskis has not done anything illegal. The reasons and circumstances for the transfer of EUR 500,000 are completely different. Namely, Osinovskis was ready to pay a commission to save a "stuck" 40 million euro contract with customers in Russia and wanted to use Magonis' private relations and contacts in Russia for this purpose. The money is absolutely legal with a traceable origin.
And the whole course of the trial proved that the first version was invented in some side room and has nothing to do with the real events. However, there has always been a feeling that prosecutors are a priori sticking only to this version, but this has not been proven by any convincing facts.
We can divide this evidence into three groups. The first are witnesses. There were many witnesses, and most of them were summoned by the public prosecution. Both when reading the testimony given during the pre-trial investigation and hearing what the witnesses said in court, I was amazed at why the public prosecution called these witnesses at all. Because they helped the defense and did not confirm the accusation in the slightest. Witnesses stated that Magonis could not and did not influence the tender for the purchase of locomotives in any way. Witnesses confirmed that Magonis had private contacts in Russia, which was why he was able to facilitate the renewal of a 40 million contract with the Daugavpils locomotive repair plant. All the witnesses testified against the accusation, no witness would say that Magonis was involved in the tender for the purchase of locomotives.
I do not understand Bordāns' accusations to the court that the process was excessively long. We can see how long other processes tend to go on. The length was due to the fact that the court had to question all the witnesses that the prosecution added to the list. The question, of course, arises, why did the prosecutor call all these witnesses who had not said anything in favor of the charge?
The second block of evidence is the documents. There is a lot. I was expecting to see perhaps some justification for the investigators' version there, but there is nothing there either - the procedures for procuring are described, and the procurement of locomotives also took place exactly as described in the procedures. There is absolutely nothing in the procurement documents regarding the accusation.
And thirdly, there are operational recordings of conversations. They do not in any way prove and may even overturn the accusing version. There is an interesting story with the record that interests me the most and that happened to the property of Uģis Magonis' spouse. Any evidence must be assessed from three aspects, as required by law: applicability, reliability, and admissibility. None of these criteria is met for this entry. In terms of applicability, this entry cannot be interpreted in favor of the accusation, as most of the conversation is about the renewal of the Russian contract with the Daugavpils plant.
Experts from the Forensic Administration could not confirm that this conversation was not modified, and the two defendants remember it differently. Why couldn't the experts confirm it? Because for some reason KNAB could not submit the original record to the experts. And the experts could not prove that the copy submitted to them was not assembled, cut, glued together. So, from a reliability point of view, this record is dubious.
The third criterion is admissibility. With the help of experts, it could be concluded that the recording was made with such devices that can record from a distance, but only by entering the property of Magonis' spouse. Operational entry is an action that requires the sanction of a judge specifically authorized by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. But there is no such sanction in the case. Thus, the record is considered inadmissible evidence and cannot be used in a conviction.
This evidence has been obtained with irregularities and errors, and the question remains as to why only a copy of the record was provided to the experts and not the original.
During the conversation, Magonis tells Osinovskis that it is not possible to make a tender for a single bidder, but the prosecutor's office believes that this proves Magonis' guilt in taking a bribe…
By the time the conversation took place, the tender had already ended and a contract had been signed. However, in her indictment, the prosecutor stated that an offer of a bribe had taken place there. Sorry, how is this possible? There is no logic in this.
Although it is not known how real the conversation is at all, it is also clear from these passages that the conversation is about the agreement between the Daugavpils plant and the Russian Railway. Magonis tells Osinovskis how he plans to get the contract renewed.
What did Osinovskis pay Magonis for?
It would have been good if someone was interested in checking the versions of the accused on what the money was paid for. The main thing has been the amount of money, but what it was paid for was not of interest at all. My client had neither the intention nor the motive to give a bribe for the win of Daugavpils Locomotive Repair Plant. First, for moral reasons. Secondly, the tender had already been won, but the total amount of the procurement was not large compared to the turnover of the factory - it is a simple operational activity performed by the company's management. Third, in this transaction, Osinovskis personally, as a shareholder, does not even have theoretical benefits.
In turn, Osinovskis had the intention, justification and motive to attract all possible resources to resume business with Russia. The subject of the agreement was repair services with high added value, the amount of which exceeded the company's annual turnover, as a result of which the Daugavpils plant would not need additional investments from Osinovskis as a shareholder.
The money was paid so that Magonis, using his private communications, would try to get the contract renewed for the Daugavpils plant with the Russian Railway. Not every money is a bribe, nor is every money given in cash a bribe. The fact that a transaction may seem unusual does not mean that it is illegal. But did the prosecutor's office check that version? The prosecutor's office was not interested in it. The prosecutor's office just wanted to "stick" the money to the version of the locomotive tender.
The statement of the prosecutor's office that Magonis may have influenced the president of Russian Railways as the president of Latvijas Dzelzceļš is interesting. There is also no evidence of this. How? On the contrary, all the witnesses pointed to private contacts between Magonis and Russian officials.
How can such nonsense be put forward in general? Where is Magonis and where is Yakunin? How can Magonis affect Russia?
In the sense that Vladimir Yakunin, the president of the Russian Railways, employed about as many people when he was in office as there are people in Estonia?
Precisely. Therefore, the second part of the accusation did not receive any confirmation and could not be obtained.
My client has done everything right - first, he turned to Estonian lawyers and found out that private cash transactions are allowed in Estonia. He had withdrawn dividends and paid taxes so that there could be no doubt as to the origin of such money. He handed over the money in the presence of witnesses, also aware that the process was being watched and filmed by the Estonian security police. However, convinced that he was not doing anything illegal, he made the deal.
One of the findings of a recent audit by the State Audit Office was that the prosecutor's office is pushing forward unpromising cases. Why does the prosecutor's office not listen to the State Audit Office? There is no doubt that the prosecutor's office will get Magonis and Osinovskis' case to a higher level.
We are already seeing the pressure on the prosecutor's office. And this influence has been going on for a long time. What options can the prosecutor's office have if one politician has stated that he has been offered a bribe of a million to reclassify the case as a "milder article"? And he was so honest that the did not accept the million. Imagine yourself in the prosecutor's place! If he did not protest, would people not start accusing that this one honest politician did not take a million, but the prosecutor's office probably did? I believe that there has been influencing and intervention in the process from the very beginning. I believe that the current Attorney General is unaffected, but the fact that there has been pressure from the outset is obvious.
And I really hope that this case does not become a weapon to cover up one politician's personal negligence and save their skin in order to avoid punishment in another criminal case.
A meeting of the Judicial Council is scheduled for 29 January, at which the case will be examined with Bordāns' remarks. What will happen?
I cannot predict what will happen, but there is a directive of the European Parliament and the Council of 9 March 2016, which is transposed into Latvian law, and it prohibits officials from expressing themselves in this way and interfering in legal proceedings by implying or saying someone is guilty before trial proceedings have been concluded and the judgment has entered into force.
This applies equally to the shocking statement of the Minister of Justice, which provoked an immediate reaction, and to the long-ignored public opinion of Juris Jurašs. Let me remind you that he is currently the head of the Legal Affairs Committee of the Saeima, and the directive is directly applicable to him as well. Let's see how the Council of Justice will evaluate it and to what extent the European directive is applied in Latvia.