PAUL KERES ⟩ I hope that this organization with extensive powers will be examined thoroughly

Paul Keres. Photo: Mihkel Maripuu/Postimees

• They have abandoned coherent legal reasoning in legal proceedings.
• The Financial Intelligence Unit systematically ignores the principles of good governance, legality.
• The article presents a much severer accusation of attempts to shield the people involved.

On November 19, Postimees published on its online news site an article by Ülle Harju, «Head of the financial intelligence unit conducting a witch hunt with permission from law enforcement agencies.» Unfortunately, there is nothing surprising in this article, attorney at law Paul Keres writes.

The Financial Intelligence Unit (FIU) is an organization that has abandoned basic administrative practices in its administrative proceedings, likely due to a belief that their activities are so important that administrative principles should not get in their way. In legal proceedings, they have abandoned coherent legal reasoning, as they are used to no one listening to the other side, and generally, since the claims in the article were not refuted – it seems they have also abandoned professional ethics.

Since media coverage of the excesses by the Internal Security Service (ISS) in the case of Parvel Pruunsild, it is perhaps the first time serious discussions have taken place about whether security agencies should actually be checked and monitored. However, the FIU is exactly the same type of organization. Shrouded in secrecy and «their own laws,» as stated in the article referring to Matis Mäeker. An audit report by the chancellor of justice highlights that this organization systematically disregards the principles of good governance and legality, operating, to put it mildly, like in the Wild West. Because no one is monitoring them. For example, the justice chancellor's report revealed that the FIU does not even maintain files on its proceedings, instead gathering documents and binding files only once the subject of their supervision has taken the matter to court. And even this audit was only possible to the extent that the FIU allowed it. Frankly, this defies comprehension.

However, the article also presents a much more severe accusation of attempts to shield the people involved in the matter. This accusation is not something that can just be shrugged off, because when the head of an institution dictates penalties as part of negotiation tactics, it is undoubtedly an allegation that must be investigated.

This spring, I spoke with a concerned colleague who described a shocking incident where Matis Mäeker allegedly invited one of their colleagues to a meeting to discredit the law firm where the latter colleague worked and convince them to join a different firm—one where Mäeker's wife works. That was a jaw-dropper, as they say. The article by Postimees describes very similar habits.

In conclusion – I hope this piece of investigative journalism serves as a trigger for thoroughly examining this organization, which holds significant power but is subject to very limited oversight, as is fitting in a rule of law.