/nginx/o/2016/08/21/5744051t1hd55b.jpg)
While local government figures whose prosperity grows out of corruption might be convicted in court, they often get to keep embezzled assets. The reason for this is rather prosaic: fellow party members and friends in the community office simply won't demand the return of assets stolen from the community.
«Will we signal to Estonia that we are not interested in recovering stolen assets?» head of the Police and Border Guard Board's (PPA) corruption crimes unit Mati Ombler asks.
Ombler runs the bureau and its 40 employees tasked with fighting corruption in both the public and private sectors side by side with the Internal Security Service.
During its five years, the bureau has registered 1,350 crimes and sent more than 100 cases to the prosecution. No fewer than 44 percent of these cases have had suspects employed by local governments.
Ombler admits that if in the first few years corruption crimes included a lot of cases of misuse of funds and property in schools, heads of schools quickly learned from others' mistakes – corruption cases in schools disappeared almost completely in a very short time.
The same trend can currently be observed concerning sale of driver's licenses as the Road Administration has launched structural reforms to uproot corruption.
The main pain spot, where we can see no downtrend in corruption, is local governments. The bureau has sent to the prosecution 18 cases of executive level corruption in local governments in the past four years.
Ombler makes no secret of the fact that detectives have made two important observations over the years: local government officials do not learn from the mistakes of their colleagues; and what is worse, in some cases members of the community even support the perpetrator instead of condemning their actions.
One way of doing this indirectly is not to file a civil action against an employee who has embezzled the local government's joint property. To put it plainly – the local government simply waives its right to file for damages and settles for punishment sought by the prosecution.
The court cannot award damages in a situation where the local government does not want to file a civil action in pretrial proceedings. The prosecution can apply for confiscation of criminal proceeds or order payment of a sum that matches the value of property to be confiscated. However, even if damages are awarded, there is a possibility the money will end up in the accounts of the state and not the local government.
«In truth, there have been virtually no cases where local governments have filed civil actions. The main reason is that people are afraid to do it, or simply do not want to do it,» Ombler said. Factors at play include close relationships, towing the party line, and simple camaraderie.
«We have even received objections, down to reluctance to even discuss whether the local government feels it has suffered damages in the council. It is like they are not interested,» the bureau chief added.
This has been the case concerning former Kõpu parish elder Tõnu Kiviloo, arrested by the Central Criminal Police on suspicions of corruption on January 15, 2014.
While Kiviloo's trial is ongoing, the elder is accused of violation of procedural restrictions or entering into transactions with companies in which he has an interest in the name of the parish government in 2009-2014. He is also accused of embezzlement of parish property, including furniture, motor fuel, as well as funds. While this adds up to damages of more than 10,000 euros, it is not the final volume of the accusations.
Despite this, the parish remains undecided on whether it wants collect damages from the former elder.
Ombler said that things are much the same in the case of former Kohtla parish elder Hannes Lumiste (43). Lumiste agreed to be found guilty in agreement process that landed him a two-year conditional sentence on September 3.
Parish elder Lumiste counterfeited instruments of delivery and receipt in the public procurement «Renovation of Kohtla parish gravel roads 2015» in the same year to report bigger volume of work than was actually done.
The elder also signed invoices based on the aforementioned counterfeit instruments as a result of which the parish paid the winning contractor more than it got in return in road maintenance.
The 15,192 euros embezzled from the parish in this manner were then transferred to the accounts of other companies to finally end up in the hands of Lumiste and a third person. Kohtla parish has not filed a civil suit against its former elder at this time.
«These patterns cannot be allowed to be as prevalent as they are. In most cases local governments will not say they have suffered damages, that they want to participate in proceedings as civil plaintiffs and get that money back as their budgets are modest to begin with,» Ombler said.
«I believe they haven't realized how bad it looks if they omit that step.» The solution would be for local governments to agree on a policy of zero tolerance towards corruption, Ombler believes.
«In cases where criminal proceedings are already underway, local governments, upon being notified, should forget all about political orientation, party affiliation, and camaraderie. Altered attitudes on the executive level would go a long way. Estonia is short on those,» Ombler said.