The court dislikes that Rudolfs Meroni is not complying with its decisions
It should be reminded that this is by no means the first criminal proceeding, the initiation or non-initiation of which against R. Meroni is decided at the law enforcement authorities or their backrooms, or some other backrooms.
For example, the status of the custodian of property for the former Swiss lawyer R. Meroni was revoked by the Riga Regional Court on August 17 last year precisely because criminal proceedings had already been initiated against him under Article 308 - “Illegal Actions Involving Pledged, Attached and Removed Property” or, more simply, for squandering seized property.
However, the Riga Regional Court had not received a clear confirmation of this status of R. Meroni from the State Police but had inferred it from the context of legal norms. Namely, the Riga Regional Court had received a letter from the Organized Crime Enforcement Department of the State Police that in connection with the possession of the property seized from the Lembergs family, criminal proceedings had been initiated under the aforementioned Article 308. The court concluded that criminal proceedings had been instituted against all the custodians of the seized property, including R. Meroni. And, in accordance with Article 61 of the Criminal Procedure Law, the court concluded that "Rudolfs Meroni is considered to be a person against whom criminal proceedings have been initiated".
Article 61 of the Criminal Procedure Law referred to by the Court states: "If in the initiated criminal proceedings information is obtained, that it is possible that the specific person has committed the criminal offence under investigation, such person shall acquire the status of a person against whom criminal proceedings have been initiated". And starting from the moment when the person “is involved in the performance of procedural activities, or the person directing the proceedings has publicly made known information regarding the initiation of criminal proceedings against such person, such person shall acquire procedural right to defence”.
From the above, Neatkarīgā concludes that R. Meroni could not yet be involved in the proceedings, so he does not have the right to a defense (in simple terms, criminal proceedings are conducted reluctantly, if anything at all is done there).
Among other things, these criminal proceedings were initiated reluctantly (initially it was refused to initiate criminal proceedings) upon the application of journalist Lato Lapsa, who had calculated a few years ago that JSC Ventbunkers, JSC Kālija Parks and JSC Ventspils Tirdzniecības Osta controlled by R. Meroni have pledged the seized shares to JSC Latvijas Naftas Tranzīts, also controlled by R. Meroni. Among other things, why was this not found to be a fictitious transaction for the purposes of money laundering?
The court now calls on the State Police to assess whether Meroni should not be prosecuted "for non-execution or delay in execution of a court decision", i.e., for Meroni's failure to hand over the seized property to the Provision State Agency, as decided by the court.
Meanwhile, the portal Pietiek.com writes that the management of the Provision State Agency will change, and you do not have to be a psychic to understand that this change of management is due to the seized property - that is, the inability to take over this property from R. Meroni.
To understand whether this Monday's ancillary decision of the Riga Regional Court could somehow activate some procedural actions against R. Meroni or whether the imitation of actions will continue, Neatkarīgā yesterday sent a question to the State Police Public Relations Department on whether the State Police will respect the court's ancillary decision and when it will be possible to know the State Police's decision in this question. Neatkarīgā also asked how many criminal proceedings against R. Meroni the State Police has now initiated and how many have ended.
No answers have been received yet.