Prosecutor General Juris Stukāns: I call for the publication of materials of the loud criminal cases (Part I)

Former Chairman of the Criminal Chamber of the Riga Regional Court, now Prosecutor General Dr. iur. Juris Stukāns in an interview with Neatkarīgā said that the materials of controversial and loud criminal cases must be published in full so that the people can assess who was right - the accused, prosecutors or the court. He also revealed his vision of the seized property issue of the Lembergs case, shared his memories of the vote in the Judicial Council in connection with the selection of a successor to the Criminal Chamber of the Riga Regional Court and explained his relationship with the US Embassy and the foreign-funded organization Delna.

When you took up the post of Prosecutor General, your main motto was to improve the work of prosecutors. A year and four months have passed. What has been achieved and what should still be worked on?

Looking at my concept when I was applying for this post and indicating how I want to do this work, I believe that quite a lot of what I mentioned there has been done. I am very grateful to all the prosecutors, my colleagues, because they support my initiatives. Most importantly, all prosecutors have really changed their attitude and approach to the work to be done.

How so?

This is reflected in the fact that the working day of prosecutors - not everyone, but mostly - starts at the police station, where issues related to the already started proceedings are discussed.

Today, no one - neither the police nor any other authority, nor the prosecutor himself - is surprised that we initiate and complete criminal proceedings for criminal offenses and less serious offenses within 48 hours. This is already commonplace. Our approach is this: where everything is clear, the person is detained and there is no doubt at the time of detention that the person has committed the specific offense, we are working on the case without leaving the scene. As far as possible, the prosecutor concludes this with an injunction without burdening the court.

The second important aspect is that in serious and particularly serious cases the prosecutor is involved in the criminal investigation from the very first moment, initiating the proceedings, including driving to the scene, participating in the initial procedural steps with the investigator and agreeing with the investigators on the procedural steps. A clear example is the so-called customs case with detention in Latgale a few months ago. Several prosecutors have been involved in the investigation of the case since the case was first opened. The case is currently in the prosecutor's office and will be sent to court in the coming days. This is proof that, by concentrating resources and attracting them in addition, we can ensure that things that are important to society move much faster.

Here is another aspect. When I applied for this post, people asked questions about cases that are not clear. Now they have all been brought to court.

Yes! We wanted to ask about that. When you took office, you had a saying about these loud cases that we shouldn't count chickens before they hatch.

Yes, in all cases!

Of the loud cases that have been clarified, we only know the builders' cartel case, but it was terminated.

It was not terminated. The press gets it mixed up. The builders' cartel case actually involves a number of cases.

The main entrepreneur, who is mentioned in this case, is already on the accused's bench in court in three proceedings. Therefore, if we want to know specifically about this construction, then we have to talk about the processes started by the State Revenue Service. And KNAB had another case of the so-called builders' cartel. There are several. Some of them have been terminated, but most episodes have been sent to court.

You once mentioned the ten loud cases. In which other ones has some clarity been found?

There is clarity in all cases. In all cases, we have put an end at least in the pre-trial investigation and handed them over to the court.

A year ago, you also mentioned the criminal case of Artuss Kaimiņš...

Yes, it is in court.

You mentioned that there is no clarity in the case, and there is really no clarity there, because it was initiated by the KNAB for illegal financing of parties through fictitious advertising - 179,000 euros from companies controlled by Rudolfs Meroni. But now the accusation is of accounting fraud. The question is - is Artuss Kaimiņš really a person who is able to falsify accounting, moreover, in a company that he does even not own?

It is difficult for me to talk about the details. Then you have to take the case, read it, investigate the accusation. The fact that the accusation was originally different is no exception or miracle. The investigating authority initially relies on the information received. It is difficult to say who reported or provided the information to give the investigation a reason for a different accusation. There is a procedure prescribed by law. An investigation is underway. The prosecutor evaluates the evidence, the sufficiency of the evidence, and it is the prosecutor who makes the final charge and takes the case to court. He can only take a case to court to the extent that he has no doubt that a criminal offense has been committed. If the prosecutor has doubts or the sufficiency of evidence does not reach the level required for the person to be charged, the prosecutor cannot take the case to court. In order to assess the circumstances of the case, I would urge you, when the court has completed its hearing, to ask the same Artuss Kaimiņš to publish all the materials of the case, everything that is recorded there, and then everyone will have the opportunity to draw their own conclusions. I would urge anyone who claims that something is unfounded to publish all the findings of the case. We can't reveal all the circumstances of the case. We can only reveal those with whom we go to court, on the basis of which we are accusing. If there is insufficient evidence, we cannot prosecute. But that does not mean that the event did not happen. This is very important.

In this case, I asked to be granted access as a journalist for the part of the criminal case that has been closed. I was not allowed to access even the closed part.

Ask Artuss Kaimiņš. He has the right to receive the whole thing. Let him show you.

Well... Now the case is being supervised by Prosecutor Māris Urbāns. He is now also the supervising prosecutor in the new Dobele case and in many others. But prosecutor Urbāns also participated in the seizure of property in the Lembergs case. Maybe Prosecutor Urbāns has had some special treatment for Mr Meroni since then?

I don't know anything about special treatment. Was Prosecutor Urbāns in that case at all? Maybe he stood by there but has not taken procedural steps as a facilitator? I don't think he was in that status there. Maybe he was involved in investigating some part of the large case? In the seizure parts, there were other prosecutors. Do you have the judgement?

I'll send it to you.

With his signature?

Yes. We have already published its details several times. It can be found in our publications on the Internet.

It may be so, but even if it were, he was not the prosecutor who later brought the charge. As far as I understand, he was indeed involved to some degree in some way, but not as the investigating prosecutor in charge of the case. Perhaps he was asked to prepare this judgement technically, including the necessary information?

It was precisely regarding the seizure of property that Prosecutor Urbāns was involved.

He was given a separate task, he formatted it, and maybe his whole role ended there. Then it really needs to be checked. But what has Meroni got to do with it and what else did you want to say?

Māris Urbāns still monitors the same case of Artuss Kaimiņš and even maintains the accusation. But Kaimiņš case began with suspicions of illegal party funding by Mr Meroni.

Got it. I can reassure you again. The process is initially initiated and investigated by the investigating authority. The prosecutor, if he is the supervising prosecutor, monitors compliance with the law. Latvian law is unique in the sense that the investigating authority has the right to submit complaints about the prosecutor to the next higher prosecutor.

Consequently, if there were any personal interest there, I do not think that the investigating authority which had probably initiated and pursued the case would remain silent.

It's not the prosecutor who will decide the guilt. It will be decided by the court. For the Prosecutor Urbāns, for example, in the case of Juris Jurašs, there was an acquittal. The prosecutor wrote an objection. Let's see what'll happen.

Prosecutor Urbāns also has the case of Juris Jurašs, the case of the Saeima Member Atis Zakatistovs...

Well, yes! He has experience. Very cool. A specialization!

There are also the cases of Saeima Members Adamovičs and Nemiro...

What's wrong with that? He has the experience and knowledge in working with Members. The head prosecutor decides which prosecutor gets which case. In this case, it is [Head Prosecutor of the Division for Coordination of the Corruption Combatting of the Criminal Justice Department] Māris Leja. If there are any complaints about the Head Prosecutor, then it comes to me. Then I can evaluate and also change this supervising prosecutor. I have not received any complaints about Māris Urbāns.

About Head Prosecutors. All Head Prosecutors of the General Prosecutor's Office have changed, except for your deputy [Head Prosecutor of the Criminal Justice Department] Arvīds Kalniņš…

You want to ask why he has not been replaced (laughs)?

Basically.

It's very simple. The law does not provide for the replacement of the Head Prosecutor if violations specified by law are not found. Mr Kalniņš does his job. I have not received any indications or evidence, or even information that he has broken the law. Therefore, I do not have the right to make any claims against him. He performs his duties with the utmost responsibility. Even if there were reason to question his actions in any way, it would come to me. The final decision will be signed by the Prosecutor General. It would be possible to replace him by reorganizing and evaluating the candidates for the specific position accordingly. Departments are provided by law. I cannot close and re-establish a new department to subjectively influence the presence or absence of a Head Prosecutor. I have not suspended or removed any Head Prosecutor due to any violations or problems.

The interview will be continued in future issues of the newspaper

*****

Be the first to read interesting news from Latvia and the world by joining our Telegram and Signal channels.