The state is still unable to take over the property seized in the Lemberg case

It is now the fifteenth year since Lemberg’s criminal case has been in court. In the long court case, the question of how Meroni, the architect of the network of Ventspils transit business offshore firms, takes care of the seized property entrusted to him was brought up from time to time. Two and a half years ago, the Riga District Court quite unexpectedly removed Meroni from keeping the property, because his reports were incomplete and the police investigated a possible wastage of the property.

The court ordered Meroni to hand over the seized property to the State Security Agency. This body of the Ministry of the Interior organizes the construction of the border fence, destroys confiscated alcohol and cigarettes. However, managing companies and real estate worth hundreds of millions of euros is not really the agency’s specialty. It became clear quite quickly that it would not be easy to enforce the court’s decision.

Meroni initially “de facto” expressed “relief” about the removal from custody in the Lemberg case. However, at the same time, he also stated that he did not really understand what was being asked of him, indicated the nuances of why he could not implement the decision, and also later claimed that he was suspended on the basis of false information. As a result, the property did not come under the control of the agency.

As “de facto” already reported, the State Security Agency, unable to cope on its own, wanted to attract outside lawyers and auditors to help. However, the procurement was stopped. The previous government of Krišjānis Kariņa (JV) chose a different path behind closed doors on February 1 last year. The only thing that was publicly disclosed was that the Ministry of Justice will work on a new regulatory framework for the management of seized shares of capital companies. The work had to be completed by December 1 of last year.

“Therefore, I have inherited such a task from the previous minister, a task assigned by the Cabinet of Ministers to the Ministry of Justice. Taking over his powers from the previous minister, it had not been fulfilled. (..) I have asked you to tell me clearly in what time frame it will be ready,” Minister of Justice Inese Lībiņa-Egnere told the program.

The previous Minister of Justice, Jānis Bordāns, blames the Ministry of the Interior, which has not failed to fulfill its duties. “The Ministry of the Interior, in my opinion, sabotaged the procurement for the management of these capital shares. I think that it is an action that can be evaluated from a legal point of view, why they did not hold this tender and did not assign a company to manage it,” said Bordans.

From what he said, it can be understood that the Ministry of Justice undertook to solve this issue on its own initiative. However, he denies that the work was not done. Bordan remembers that the ministry prepared an appropriate report for the government. But the ministry does not know anything about it: the issue has not reached the government anyway.

The current Minister of Justice Lībiņa-Egnere justifies the failure to meet the deadlines with the difficult task of harmonizing criminal law with commercial law. However, she promises to prepare the document: “It will not be a formal execution. It will be of a nature to settle the matter.”

The Riga Regional Court believes that the obligation imposed by the court on August 17, 2020 to transfer Meroni’s property to the State Security Agency for safekeeping is still valid. No new decisions have been made in this regard.

In the Court of Appeal, the so-called Lemberg trial, in which his son Anrijs Lemberg and businessman Ansis Sormulis are also accused, is currently undergoing a judicial debate. This means that the case has entered the finish line. The condition of the assets seized in the case is important so that in the event of a conviction, there would be property to confiscate.

It should be noted that the State Police is currently investigating the fact that Meroni has not complied with the court’s decision on the transfer of property.