The abbreviated judgment in the Lembergs case was not written by the court itself
Previously, the text of the abbreviated judgment (455 pages) was compared by Neatkarīgā with the text of the accusation written by the prosecutors in the section about extortion of the shares of SIA Puses “not quicker than in the autumn of 1993” from Valentīns Kokalis. It is obvious that in this section the court has simply copied the text of the accusation word for word, comma for comma with all grammatical and factual errors, without looking into all the absurdities contained in this accusation (Neatkarīgā publication of May 14 this year "The court did not write the judgment, it simply copy-pasted from the accusation"), also completely ignoring what was really revealed in the 12-year court investigation.
Continuing the research, Neatkarīgā found that the court has acted in the same way - copy-pasted - in the section of the abbreviated judgment on confiscation of property. The court simply copied the prosecutor's decision to seize the property, written on December 17, 2007, without examining the facts and without even assessing what was actually revealed by the court's investigation.
Moreover, the court has even ignored the fact that this decision of the prosecutors contradicts the accusation written by the very same prosecutors!
Respectively: in one section of the abbreviated judgment of February 22 in the so-called Lembergs case, the court simply copied the accusation written by the prosecutors, but in another section it copied another procedural document - the decision written by the prosecutors to seize the property.
Thus, it can be stated that the Chamber of Criminal Cases of the Riga Regional Court (judges Irīna Jansone, Ligita Kuzmane and Ārija Ždanova) is not at all the author of the abbreviated judgment in the Lembergs case.
Accordingly, it also clearly indicates something about the “impartiality” of this court - whether this court has at all assessed any allegations made by prosecutors and verified the facts presented by them.
It also clearly shows that this court has completely ignored everything that the defense has repeatedly pointed out in connection with the seized property. Among other things, the Latvian court has completely ignored the final rulings of the Swiss Supreme Court, which completely overturned the statements of Latvian prosecutors and Rudolfs Meroni about the true owner of a Swiss company - contrary to the rulings of the Swiss court, the Latvian court has now with the abbreviated judgment assigned the ownership of this company to Aivars Lembergs, deciding also to confiscate this property.
One thing is written in the section on the official's declaration…
A clear example of the fact that the Riga Regional Court is not the author of this judgment is what was written in the abbreviated judgment about a company registered in the Netherlands with a very complex name.
It can be seen from the accusation written by the prosecutors that Aivars Lembergs in 2000 owned "no less than 100 shares" in Beleggingsmaatschappij Geit B.V. registered in the Netherlands, but A. Lembergs did not indicate this property in his official's declaration, therefore he is criminally liable under Section 219 of the Criminal Law.
Here is an excerpt from the accusation:
The prosecutors also concluded that a year later, in 2001, A. Lembergs had owned only "no less than 33.33%" of the shares of Beleggingsmaatschappij Geit B.V., and again A. Lembergs had not declared this property. No one cares where 66.67% of the shares disappeared during the year.
Here is another excerpt from the accusation:
The court copied the text of the accusation word for word and found A. Lembergs guilty of failing to declare these shares.
Here are two excerpts from the abbreviated judgment:
The court says that the ownership of these shares was clarified during the court investigation. Neatkarīgā observed most of the hearings in the proceedings, but in them no discussions of the true ownership of Beleggingsmaatschappij Geit B.V. took place.
But what is important - both prosecutors and the court digit for digit indicate that the registration number of this Dutch company is No. 33254226.
…And something completely different on the section on confiscation of property!
As is known, the court of the first instance, by determining that A. Lembergs had indeed extorted stocks and shares from the most influential people of that time in 1993-1995, applied an additional penalty in addition to imprisonment - confiscation of property.
Therefore, it is interesting - what kind of property does the Riga Regional Court want to confiscate in the case of Beleggingsmaatschappij Geit B.V.?
This court wants the confiscation of "property seized from Aivars Lembergs and Anrijs Lembergs" (without specifying how much specifically belongs to each of them), including "33.34% of the real beneficiary rights of Aivars Lembergs and Anrijs Lembergs in Beleggingsmaatschappij Geit B.V."
What is that?
The court has previously found that Aivars Lembergs owns 33.33 shares in this company - why not confiscate these specific shares, but rather some incomprehensible "real beneficiary rights", and in some joint ownership with Anrijs Lembergs, and in some other amount?
The answer is simple - in this case, the court has simply copied the decision of prosecutor Andis Mežsargs of December 17, 2007 to seize the property, making some strange percentage adjustment, apparently taking into account that the seizure of Līga Lemberga's "property" was later lifted.
What evidence is there for this version? Very simple - the court here points to a completely different registration number of the company Beleggingsmaatschappij Geit B.V. than in the section of the abbreviated judgment on non-declaration of ownership. The court refers to the registration number of Beleggingsmaatschappij Geit B.V. that was given by the prosecutor in the decision to seize the property - "registered in the Netherlands under No. 007001533" - and neither the prosecutors nor the court feel any shame that this number is completely different from any other section of the abbreviated judgment.
Excerpt from the prosecutor's decision of December 17, 2007:
Excerpt from the abbreviated judgment: