As the press secretary of the Supreme Court Baiba Kataja informed LETA, the Senate considered the protest of the Chief Prosecutor of the Department of Protection of Persons and State Rights of the General Prosecutor’s Office against the decision of Riga Vidzeme Suburb Court of November 12, 2019 administrator’s actions.
–
In May 2019, on the basis of an effective decision in a criminal case by which previously seized funds in the current accounts of certain persons were recognized as criminally acquired property and confiscated for the benefit of the state, the SKB applied to the insolvency administrator of the liquidated TKB. at the box office. On September 2, 2019, the administrator adopted three decisions replacing the creditors included in TKB’s accounting register, who had applied for the confiscated funds, with the Latvian state, ie the administrator recognized the state as a creditor instead of these persons.
–
The Senate points out in the decision that the court of first instance, considering the SRS complaint about the administrator’s actions, had to find out whether the decisions made by the administrator recognizing the state as a creditor are legal in a situation when seized funds belonging to certain persons in TKB current accounts for the benefit of the state.
–
On November 12, 2019, rejecting the SRS complaint about the administrator’s actions, the Riga City Vidzeme Suburb Court actually recognized the state as a TKB creditor, replacing the credit institution’s previous creditors, and joined the administrator’s opinion that the state must wait for its claims to be satisfied. in the procedure specified in Article (wording until 14 November 2018).
–
However, the Senate agrees with the opinion expressed by the prosecutor in the protest that by applying the procedure for satisfaction of creditors’ claims of an insolvent credit institution in the insolvency proceedings of the liquidating TKB specified in Sections 191-195 of the Credit Institutions Law, the funds located in other banks are not excluded from civil law circulation, but are in fact included in the common property of the insolvent credit institution and returned to civil law circulation. For example, criminally obtained funds are used to satisfy priority creditors’ claims or to cover the expenses of insolvency proceedings, including the remuneration of the administrator and his assistant, which according to Section 153 of the Credit Institutions Law also depends on the total amount of funds to be paid to creditors. Such a situation does not correspond to the essence of confiscation of criminally obtained property and is not permissible.
–
As indicated in the decision of the Senate, recognizing such action of the administrator as lawful, the Vidzeme Suburb Court of the City of Riga has not taken into account the aim, meaning and essence of the normative regulation on confiscation of criminally acquired property, criminal object and property related to a criminal offense. Confiscated criminal assets, including financial assets, shall be used in the public interest for its needs. In other words, criminally obtained property can be removed from civil law circulation, the statement of the Senate was explained by AT press secretary Kataja.
–
The Senate remanded the case to the same court in another panel of judges. The decision of the Senate cannot be appealed.
— .
