She pointed out that the investigators will face two major challenges. “First, international cooperation, and secondly, the time which has passed since the crime. We shall do our best and try to find answers to what happened,” Perling said.
But why did the Prosecutor’s Office start the investigation only after the affair blew up into an international scandal? “The first answer is that the time, the space and the context have changed,” Perling explained and added: “There were details indicating the existence of a sufficient body of evidence proving that a crime had been committed.”
Jaanus Karilaid (Center Party), chairman of the Riigikogu Legal Affairs Committee, which held its emergency meeting on July 31, welcomed the self-criticism of the Prosecutor’s Office. “The representative of the office [Perling] accepted responsibility in the sense that information had not moved well enough,” he said.
According to Karilaid, Kilvar Kessler, the head of the Financial Supervision Authority, also admitted that the authority has mot enough manpower for the investigation of money laundering cases. “Representative of the Financial Supervision Authority [Kessler] said that they have 80–90 employees, but only two or three are dealing with money laundering,” Karilaid said.
He added that the Committee will negotiate with parliament factions’ chairmen to decide by September 12 whether the approximately 13 billion dollar money laundering scheme via Estonia should be investigated by an ad hoc parliamentary committee or a working group within the Legal Affairs Committee.