Already in January of this year, the liquidation of SIA Ventrans Rīga controlled by Rudolfs Meroni had been started - according to the official information of the Enterprise Register (ER), which is also publicly available on the website Firmas.lv.
As Dace Zandfelde, ER Public Relations Specialist, informed Neatkarīgā, Gints Laiviņš-Laivenieks has been appointed the liquidator of SIA Ventrans Rīga at the request of JSC Ventbunkers.
As it is known, Gints Laiviņš-Laivenieks is R. Meroni's right-hand man, namely, he is the Deputy Chairman of the Council in all major Ventspils transit business companies - JSC Ventbunkers, JSC Ventspils tirdzniecības osta, JSC Kālija parks, etc., while R. Meroni is the Chairman of the Council of these companies.
The fact about the commencement of the liquidation of SIA Ventrans Rīga has legal consequences and serious issues related to it.
First of all, SIA Ventrans Rīga is an essential component of the “seized property”, as 27.853% of the “rights of the true beneficiaries” have been seized in this company. This is not the first company to be liquidated, despite the fact that it is part of the "seized property".
Second, SIA Ventrans Rīga owns 11.5% of the share capital of SIA Ventspils ekspedīcija and the “rights of the true beneficiaries” have also been seized in this company (15.228%).
On the other hand, absolutely nothing has been seized in JSC Latvijas naftas tranzīts, although SIA Ventrans Rīga at least recently owned 11.47% of JSC Latvijas naftas tranzīts shares.
Taking into account that the share capital of JSC Latvijas naftas tranzīts is almost 105 million euros, SIA Ventrans Rīga indirectly owns assets with a conditional value of at least 12 million.
However, it is even more important that without the control of SIA Ventrans Rīga Rudolfs Meroni would not be able to fully control JSC Latvijas naftas tranzīts, therefore, there has been brutal fighting over SIA Ventrans Rīga and one of its parent companies for many years, which is seemingly the main reason for the current liquidation.
There is no doubt that the shares of JSC Latvijas naftas tranzīts or at least the “rights of the true beneficiaries” were not seized by prosecutors at the time so that R. Meroni would be free to handle the funds of JSC Latvijas naftas tranzīts. They are (or at least were some time ago) huge - considering that JSC Latvijas naftas tranzīts does not perform any economic activity, it can be concluded that at least these capitalized 105 million were money in the accounts of the joint-stock company.
Third, the court of the first instance decided to confiscate "the 27.853% rights of the true beneficiary owned by Aivars Lembergs, Anrijs Lembergs in SIA Ventrans Rīga." The court of the first instance also decided to confiscate 53 shares of SIA Ventrans Rīga parent company - Swiss company Ost Services AG - believing that they belong to Aivars Lembergs. In the court's view, 45 shares in Ost Services AG owned by Ansis Sormulis are also confiscable.
Ost Services AG owns 33.04% of the shares of SIA Ventrans Rīga, while the remaining 66.96% belongs to JSC Ventbunkers.
Fourth, another section of the judgment at first instance states that Aivars Lembergs owns a completely different number of shares in Ost Services AG. Namely, in 1999 A. Lembergs owned “no less than” 22 shares of Ost Services AG, but in 2005 - only “no less than” 9 shares.
Neatkarīgā has already written that such contradictions in the judgment are due to the fact that one section of the judgment is simply copied from the accusation written by the prosecutors, and the other section of the judgment is a copy of the decisions made by prosecutors to seize property. Neither prosecutors nor the court wanted to resolve these contradictions.
Fifth, Ansis Sormulis proved to the courts in all instances in Switzerland that A. Lembergs did not own the shares in Ost Services AG, but that he, Ansis Sormulis, owned all 98 shares (i.e. 98% of the shares).
But here's what the Riga Regional Court ruled in this regard: “Although the court has attached to the criminal case three Swiss judgments finding that Ansis Sormulis is the owner of 98 shares in the company Ost Services AG, these judgments are for information only and have no evidential value in the case.
The Court acknowledges that in the Republic of Latvia Swiss judgments are not binding on the court, they do not have the same legal force as in Switzerland, because in Latvia they are not recognized in accordance with the national legal norms of the Republic of Latvia.
Judgments given by the courts and authorities of a state shall, in accordance with the principle of national sovereignty, be binding only in the state in which they are given.
Therefore, in order for a judgment or decision of a court or authority of one state to be recognized and/or enforced in another state, such judgments or decisions must be recognized in that state so that, if necessary, they can be enforced in that state. Recognition of a judgment shall mean that a judgment given by a court of one state, having regard to the law of the country in question, shall have the same legal effect in the other state and shall have the same legal effects as the state in which the judgment was given."
This is what the Latvian court ruled.
Sixth, it is necessary to understand why R. Meroni invented (and why Latvian prosecutors and the court accepted it) that 53 shares (i.e., 53% of shares) belong to Aivars Lembergs and not Ansis Sormulis. This enabled R. Meroni to receive the custody of these 53 shares at the time, which in turn enabled R. Meroni to control SIA Ventrans Rīga and also gave him full control over JSC Latvijas naftas tranzīts.
Seventh, a year ago, the Riga Regional Court ruled that Rudolfs Meroni, among other things, should transfer 53 shares in Ost Services AG to the Provision State Agency of the Ministry of the Interior. It is possible that if this decision of the Latvian court had been executed, SIA Ventrans Rīga would not have to be liquidated and the “seized property” would be safe. But, just as a Latvian court is “not bound” by the decisions of a Swiss court, a Swiss citizen is probably “not bound” by the decisions of a Latvian court.
Of course, Latvian prosecutors and judges had to realize this already when the “custody of property” was entrusted to a Swiss citizen.
Both the appointed liquidator and the nature of the case allow us to conclude that the liquidation of SIA Ventrans Rīga has been initiated by R. Meroni.
As ER informed Neatkarīgā about the essence of the case, on May 17, 2019, the Chief Notary of the ER made a final decision to terminate the activities of SIA Ventrans Rīga, as the members of this company were unable to elect the Board for a long time.
The decision of the Chief State Notary of the ER was appealed. However, on April 15 this year, the proceedings were terminated. "As indicated in the decision to terminate the proceedings, on April 14, 2021, the court received an application from the applicants stating that the applicants waived their claim and asked the court to terminate the proceedings in administrative case no. … due to the liquidation of Ventrans Rīga.
The Register explains that the liquidation process of Ventrans Rīga was initiated on the basis of the application of the joint-stock company Ventbunkers, unified registration no. …, an interested party in the liquidation of Ventrans Rīga,” Neatkarīgā was informed by ER.
JSC Ventbunkers does not perform any activities without the consent of R. Meroni, therefore there is no doubt that the liquidation of SIA Ventrans Rīga takes place on his initiative.
*****
Be the first to read interesting news from Latvia and the world by joining our Telegram and Signal channels.