The Supreme Court found the Centre Party guilty of influence peddling

Mihhail Korb (front) and Hillar Teder. Photo: Mihkel Maripuu

The Supreme Court of Estonia on Friday dismissed the appeals filed by the attorneys for Hillar Teder, Mihhail Korb, and the Center Party in the Porto Franco criminal case, thereby making their convictions final.

The Supreme Court rejected the appeals of Mihhail Korb's lawyers Paul Keres and Andri Rohtla; the Center Party's lawyers Oliver Nääs, Aivar Pilv, and Marko Pilv; and Hillar Teder's lawyers Jaanus Tehver and Erki Kergandberg, who had sought acquittals.

As a result, the judgment of the Tallinn Circuit Court from March 18, 2024 took effect. That judgment overturned the acquittal issued by the Harju County Court in October 2023 and instead found businessman Hillar Teder, former Center Party secretary general Mihhail Korb, and the Center Party guilty.

The Tallinn Circuit Court on March 18, 2024 annulled the verdict issued by the Harju County Court and made a new verdict in which it found Teder, Korb and the Center Party guilty of influence peddling.

The appellate court handed Teder a conditional prison sentence of one year and five months with a two-year probationary period. Korb was handed a conditional sentence of one year and two months with a two-year probationary period.

The court handed the Center Party a financial penalty of 750,000 euros. The court increased the sentence for the new crime by the unserved part of the previous sentence issued by the Harju County Court on Sept. 5, 2019, that is by 250,000 euros, and thus the Center Party was handed a combined penalty of one million euros.

The court found it to be proven that in February 2020, Hillar Teder offered a donation to the Center Party and in return wanted the party's secretary general Mihhail Korb to use his influence over Tallinn Mayor Mihhail Kõlvart to help quickly reach a compromise between OÜ Porto Franco, a company associated with him, and the city government in a dispute over the amount payable by OÜ Porto Franco for an easement. The absence of the easement stood in the way of the signing of a 100 million euro loan agreement for OÜ Porto Franco. The Supreme Court agreed with the appellate court that the agreement on influence peddling between Hillar Teder and Mihhail Korb is proven.

The Supreme Court's criminal chamber emphasized that it is punishable to enter into an agreement where the person offering or giving assets or other benefits believes that they will thereby obtain some significant advantage from an official. Regardless of the achievement of the goal, the mere conclusion of such an agreement undermines trust in the integrity of public authority.

The attorneys for the Center Party complained to the circuit court that the party's financial situation was not taken into account in the choice of the penalty rate. The Supreme Court explained that since the sentence is intended to cause the offender real perceivable restrictions and losses, the person's penal sensitivity must be assessed as of the time of the application of the sentence. Looking at the party's income and expenses for 2023, the monetary penalty of 750,000 euros is not excessive, according to the top court.

Chief State Prosecutor Taavi Pern noted that the Supreme Court's decision confirms that there is no place for any obscure or criminal schemes at the intersection of politics and business, as law enforcement agencies will expose them and bring those guilty to accountability.

"In this criminal case, the county court initially reached a different legal conclusion, as it did not consider the circumstantial evidence sufficient for a conviction. However, both the circuit court and the Supreme Court arrived at a clear position in line with the prosecution's assessment of the evidence -- they concluded that Hillar Teder and Mihhail Korb had agreed that, in exchange for financial support to the party, the Center Party will use its influence over Tallinn Mayor Mihhail Kõlvart to resolve the Porto Franco easement issue," he said.

"Legal disputes in multiple court tiers and differing opinions of judges clearly illustrate how complex it is to gather evidence on covert crimes and that often charges must be proven with circumstantial evidence. The positions of the Tallinn Circuit Court and the Supreme Court confirm that if a sufficient amount of circumstantial evidence has been collected and the sequence of events can be reconstructed based on it, corruption crimes can be proven also in such cases. This is crucial because, no matter how well someone tries to conceal their actions, there must be zero tolerance for corruption. No one should gain an unfair advantage in interaction with the state or a local government simply because they know someone or provide financial support to someone," Pern stated.

In its March 2024 verdict, the circuit court said that the conclusion of an influence peddling agreement on Feb. 9, 2020, was proven. At that, the influence peddling agreement was sufficiently specific, meaning the act that was expected had been determined and it was not an abstract agreement.

The donation offered by Teder to the Center Party at the meeting was in return for the influence of the mayor promised to Teder by Mihhail Korb. Korb had also expressed his acceptance of the so-called donation for this purpose. Thus, the parties had at least broadly agreed on how and for which goal someone must start acting.

According to the court, it was proven that Teder offered assets to the party through Korb, a senior executive of the Center Party, in exchange for Korb and the Center Party using their influence over the mayor in order for OU Porto Franco to obtain an unjustified and unequal advantage from the point of view of public interest when applying for an easement from the Tallinn city government.

The court noted that an influence peddling agreement can be, but does not have to be explicit, it can also be implied, but must be objectively perceived. In this case, on Feb. 9, 2020, when Teder offered a so-called donation to the Center Party during a meeting with Korb, such an agreement was clearly perceptible, according to the court.

The court held that in a situation where it was a normal, that is, a worldview-based donation to the Center Party by Teder, there would be no need to consider and think how it would not be linked to previous agreements. Also, there would have been no need to use allusive language after making the donation.

The court upheld the county court's ruling in the part that returned 120,000 euros to the Center Party, which was voluntarily transferred to the guarantee account of the Office of the Prosecutor General. This is due to the fact that in the appeal, the prosecutor's office did not ask the court to confiscate the donation of 120,000 euros belonging to the Center Party and the circuit court had no right to confiscate outside the limits of the appeal if it has not been requested.