Entrust your money to us, said the Latvian state! Foreigners trusted, and now they are being brutally scammed retroactively. On behalf of the government, the Financial Intelligence Unit has developed and uses a financial supervision methodology that allows for the deprivation of money from third-country nationals in lightning-fast lawsuits and its transfer to the Latvian state budget. Money belonging to foreigners is nationalized without any rational justification.
Talking publicly about the dramatic consequences of the so-called overhaul of the financial system and the permissiveness of the Financial Intelligence Unit is rare. Maybe some lawyer talks about it once in a while. However, the victims themselves, from whom the Latvian state has nationalized money in the true spirit of the Soviet regime, are silent. This situation gives the impression that "the guilty dog knows exactly what it has done", "acting afraid is a sign of guilt" and "innocent people have nothing to hide." But in reality, the obligation to remain silent is imposed on the victims by the same Latvian state.
Every case of confiscation of money is heard in closed court, and the material in each of these cases is a secret of the investigation, as criminal proceedings take place at the same time, which will be closed after some time due to lack of criminal content. Courts take money from foreigners without finding out the origin of the money, not knowing if a crime has taken place, and not knowing who the perpetrator is. And the basis for deprivation of money is only hypothetical assumptions, according to the methodology developed by FIU, but not facts. Including the assumption that a foreigner has no economic justification for depositing money in Latvia. And here it should be reminded once again that for many years the Latvian state invited foreigners to deposit their money in Latvia and even granted temporary residence permits for it. This would seem absurd and unbelievable in a state governed by the rule of law, if only Neatkarīgā hadn't received one such court decision. There is no evidence, but the verdict is guilty.
In connection with the liquidation of the largest national commercial bank ABLV bank, such cases of confiscation of money from foreigners are plenty, and they have been scattered throughout all state courthouses. Sooner or later, one of them had to escape from the carefully protected environment. Of course, Neatkarīgā cannot publish this court decision that was "found on a bench in the park", but we can retell and quote it without mentioning the specific person. Criminal proceedings were initiated under Section 195, Paragraph three of the Criminal Law for the fact that in the period from 2006 to 2013 the bank account of X, a citizen of the Republic of Belarus, had been used "to launder a large amount of funds obtained as a result of an unidentified criminal offense." The Belarusian citizen is engaged in the provision of IT services and has received transfers to his accounts from various countries and various companies. These include Apple Inc. and iTunes S.à.r.l., which do not require further comments for people who know the IT sector. Over the years, Citizen X has received the money in his accounts, transferred it again, taken it out and spent his company's dividends at his own discretion. When, at the initiative of the US authorities, Latvia's largest commercial bank was forced to close down, the Belarusian citizen applied to the list of creditors to withdraw the entire balance from the bank account in liquidation - 108,007 euros and one cent. However, instead of money, he received criminal proceedings, and the court, without waiting for the outcome of the proceedings, has decided to confiscate the money in the account for the benefit of the state, moving the funds to the state budget. Of course, the state of Latvia, not Belarus.
It might seem that such a radical decision should be based on a crime detected by law enforcement authorities. But it's nothing like that. The reason for confiscating money is that an investigation is not possible within a reasonable time: "Bringing a criminal case to court in the near future (within a reasonable time) is not possible for objective reasons, because it is a complex economic offense." It's hard to investigate, so let's just convict. But then what is the offense? The court ruling states that citizen X “does not substantiate transactions to the extent that they are credible.” Respectively, he has not been able to find all the documents for transactions, transfers and his entire life since 2006. He has tried, he submitted something, but not in such quality and scope to satisfy the wishes of the Latvian authorities: "The documents submitted contain inadequacies which indicate that they may be fictitious and have been prepared only at the request of the bank to substantiate the cash flow in the accounts." And from the point of view of the police, it is suspicious that the country of residence of citizen X does not coincide with the country of business and the country of the bank account. Thus, in the opinion of the Latvian authorities, Belarusians should live and work only in Belarus.
Of course, citizen X's lawyer tried at the hearing to appeal that this view is absurd, "given that it is the 21st century and a person can travel freely, do business internationally, open bank accounts in different countries, do other normal activities in today's world.” In addition, his client does not deny that he spent his money for private purposes. On the other hand, it is not at all possible to provide all the requested information: "The requirement to provide information on the origin of funds dating back more than 5 years is illegal and absurd, in the absence of a legal obligation to keep documents." The lawyer came to the conclusion that “in Latvia, property can be seized from any person who raises abstract suspicions, and then it is hoped that perhaps a later legal basis can be found to confiscate the funds." The court listened to the lawyer's outburst and decided to take the money:
because the case is difficult to investigate, because Belarusian doing transactions outside Belarus cannot have an economic justification, because the transfers also came from low-tax countries, because the documents were not submitted in full, because in proceedings concerning proceeds of crime the parties to the case must not rebut the other party's arguments, but must submit to the court evidence of the origin of the property. Because in the Republic of Latvia the presumption of innocence has been abolished.
The decision of the court, which has come into the hands of Neatkarīgā, is sprinkled with conjectures expressed in the form of a possibility - there may be, possibly, there are grounds to presume, there are signs. The accusing party, when describing the transactions performed by the entrepreneur, does not in fact provide any evidence or facts about the crimes that might have taken place - money laundering, terrorist financing, tax evasion. However, the court is fully satisfied with the assumptions:
"The evidence in the present case indicates that the money received is likely to have been criminally obtained, although it has not been discovered specifically which crime was committed to generate the proceeds." This text was not written by some half-witted country bumpkin police officer, but by a court of the Republic of Latvia. The Government and the Saeima are directly responsible for such a judgment. A few years ago, the Latvian state called on foreigners to open accounts in Latvian commercial banks, buy property, promising temporary residence permits and access to European Union benefits. But now this money is nationalized, moreover, retroactively. When the unrest in Belarus began last year, the Latvian government discussed taking in political refugees, and Foreign Minister Edgars Rinkēvičs systematically talks about the need to provide support to the Belarusian people. However, all this is only empty words, if Latvia dares to brutally deceive the same Belarusians, using a specially developed methodology.
This scheme was previously described to Neatkarīgā by lawyer Daiga Siliņa in connection with other money deprivation proceedings. She compared Latvia's new practice with the darkest times of Soviet rule - the Red Terror is being perpetrated against Latvian bank customers:
"In fact, criminal proceedings are currently being instituted not because a criminal offense has been committed under Article 195 of the Criminal Law (money laundering), but to deprive the owner of the right to use the money, assuming that the owner cannot reliably prove the legal origin of the money."
According to the methodology used by the Financial Intelligence Unit, the police, the prosecutor's office and the court for recognizing criminally obtained money, third-country nationals whose money is frozen in Latvian banks must prove that they are not guilty. This particular Belarusian citizen failed.
The court found him guilty and confiscated the money, but the Latvian authorities are not interested in whether there was any crime in the case at all.
*****
Be the first to read interesting news from Latvia and the world by joining our Telegram and Signal channels.